Legal Opinion
Marek v. Going
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 30, 2001No. AC 20936PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
O’CONNELL, J.
In this negligence action,1 the plaintiff appeals from the judgment, rendered following a jury trial, in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff claims that *559the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury on (1) the duty owed to a helpless person and (2) the duty owed to a person over whom the defendant had assumed control. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. It was a dark and stormy night. It had been snowing since noon, and all the principals in this scenario, some of whom had been drinking alcoholic…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Goodmaster v. HouserSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Coville v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gould v. Mellick & SextonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Harris v. SheaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Amy Hiltner v. Owners Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017
- Church v. Rent-A-Center, No. 559970 (Jul. 12, 2002)Connecticut Superior Court · 2002
- Marek v. GoingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002