SIC v. Nunan
Connecticut Appellate Court
1DissentAlvord, J.
In hindsight, virtually all harms are literally foreseeable. RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 386, 650 A.2d 153 (1994). For that reason, “[i]n every case in which a defendant’s negligent conduct may be remotely related to a plaintiffs harm, the courts must draw a line, beyond which the law will not impose legal liability.” Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563, 578, 717 A.2d 215 (1998). Otherwise, the imperfect vision of reasonable foreseeability would be converted into the perfect vision of hindsight. Id. I respectfully dissent because I conclude that the defendant,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Mazurek v. Great American InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Monk v. Temple George Associates, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.