Gajewski v. Pavelo
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtDupont, C. J.
The plaintiffs, Maria Gajewski, Jan Gajewski and Janusz Gajewski, appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants rendered after a jury verdict. The plaintiffs claim that (1) the jury charge was *375so confusing that it provided inadequate guidance to the jury, (2) the jury charge included inconsistent instructions, and (3) the court improperly instructed the jury on the duty to warn under the provisions of General Statutes § 52-572q. The defendants claim that the general verdict rule precludes our review of the plaintiffs’ claims. We conclude that the defendants are correct, and therefore…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Curry v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Doe v. ManheimerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Ziman v. WhitleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gajewski v. PaveloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Gajewski v. PaveloConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Gajewski v. PaveloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Ass'nConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Malaguit v. Ski Sundown, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2012
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.