Legal Opinion
Mazzuca v. Sullivan
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 28, 2006No. AC 26044PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DiPENTIMA, J.
The plaintiff, Michael A. Mazzuca, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant James F. Sullivan, the commissioner of transportation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the sole proximate cause doctrine (1) generally is applicable to General Statutes § 13a-144 2 and (2) specifically is applicable to the present case, in which he was injured when the vehicle he was driving collided with a tree in a “clear zone” along Interstate 84. 3 We disagree with the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- White v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Bartram v. Town of SharonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Perrotti v. BennettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Kolich v. ShugrueSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Right v. BreenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. PaulingConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- State v. SmithConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Martinez v. Southington Metal Fabricating Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- State v. SmithConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.