Legal Opinion
Baystate Moving Systems, Inc. v. Bowman
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 7, 1991No. 8961PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFoti, J.
The plaintiff intervenor in this personal injury action, Michael Dupont, appeals from the judgment in the amount of $10,500 that was rendered in his favor after a jury trial. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) allowed the defendants to offer evidence of workers’ compensation benefits in violation of the collateral source rule, (2) did not permit the plaintiff to testify as a rebuttal witness to rehabilitate his own credibility, (3) did not permit Jonathan Reik to testify as a witness, and (4) charged the jury regarding the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages. We affirm…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- State v. MoynahanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- State v. RallsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- State v. BriggsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- State v. WoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Robinson v. FaulknerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hammer v. Mount Sinai HospitalConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
- Reichert v. SheridanConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Palmieri v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. Cv93 522478 (Feb. 16, 1994)Connecticut Superior Court · 1994
- Baystate Moving Systems, Inc. v. BowmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Curtis Packaging Corp. v. Kpmg, No. X06-Cv-99-0156558-S (Jul. 31, 2002)Connecticut Superior Court · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.