Legal Opinion
Witort v. United States Rubber Co.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 27, 1966No. File No. CV 4-6307-2005; File No. CV 4-6304-1694; File No. CV 4-6508-4796; File No. CV 4-6304-1695PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKinmouth, J.
These actions were instituted to recover for damage to the paint on the bodies of the plaintiffs’ automobiles caused by substances emanating from the defendant’s factory. The defendant denied the allegations and set up a special defense of assumption of the risk in all cases, and an added defense of the Statute of Limitations in the Witort case.1 The court found for the plaintiff in each case upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The defendant has appealed, assigning error in the court’s conclusions.
The findings, which were not attacked, may be stated in summary as follows: On July 5, 1962,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ruerat v. StevensSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. SciortinoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Greene v. DiFazioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Freedman v. HurwitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Worden v. Gore-Meenan Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gray v. JohnsonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
- McKay v. ZuckermanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1968
- Flack v. FlackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Barretta v. Otis Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Solomon v. MonteithConnecticut Appellate Court · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.