White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
Connecticut Appellate Court
1DissentWest, J.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s determination that the plaintiff, Roland Todd White, did not raise the “malfunction theory” before the trial court and, therefore, would reach the merits of this claim. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish aprima facie case against the defendants, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., and Cartwright Auto, LLC, under the malfunction theory, a product liability doctrine that applies where direct evidence of a specific defect is unavailable and permits a jury to infer that the vehicle was defective…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Hirschfeld v. MACHINISTSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Deere & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- John H. Kolb & Sons, Inc. v. G & L Excavating, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Vanliner Insurance v. FayConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.