Seperack v. Solaz
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtFoti, J.
In this negligence action, stemming from an automobile accident, the plaintiffs1 appeal from the judgment rendered in their favor, after a jury trial, challenging the adequacy of the jury’s award of damages. The plaintiff claims the court erred (1) in giving a Secondino instruction to the jury, (2) in failing to *686admit certain medical reports into evidence, (3) in failing to instruct the jury, as the plaintiff requested, on the issue of permanency, and (4) in failing to set aside the verdict as inadequate. We find no error.
I
The plaintiff’s first claim is that the trial court erred in…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Canaan Oil Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Cross v. HuttenlocherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Sturdivant v. Yale-New Haven HospitalConnecticut Appellate Court · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Matyas v. MinckConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Caron v. AdamsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Gemme v. GoldbergConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- State v. RossConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Chomko v. PatmonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.