Legal Opinion
Pool v. Bell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 3, 1989No. 13497PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether, during closing argument, counsel may use mathematical formulae as a basis for arriving at a pecuniary value of the plaintiffs personal injuries. Consistent with our holding in Carchidi v. Rodenhiser, 209 Conn. 526, 551 A.2d 1249 (1988), we conclude that counsel may not, because this practice improperly influences the jury in arriving at a verdict. Accordingly, the judgment for the plaintiff in this medical malpractice case is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
In this action, the plaintiff, Gregory Pool, claimed…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ardoline v. KeeganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- DiPalma v. WiesenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- Camp v. BoothSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Fitzmaurice v. FlynnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Berry v. LoiseauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Millbrook Owners Ass'n v. Hamilton StandardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Viera v. CohenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Bartholomew v. SchweizerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.