Legal Opinion

Weigold v. Patel

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided February 3, 2004No. AC 23289PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DRANGINIS, J.

The issue in this wrongful death action is whether a psychiatrist and a psychologist have a duty to warn their patient not to operate a motor vehicle after ingesting prescribed medication. The plaintiffs decedent was killed in a motor vehicle collision that was caused by the defendants’ patient who had fallen asleep while operating her vehicle. We conclude, as a matter of law, under the facts of this case, that the defendants had no duty to warn the patient not to operate her motor vehicle for the benefit of the decedent and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Shore v. Town of StoningtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  3. Evon v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  4. Praesel v. JohnsonTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Haesche v. KissnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Malloy v. Town of ColchesterConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  2. Vaillancourt v. LatifiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  3. Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
  4. Unifund CCR Partners v. SchaeppiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
  5. Byrd v. OrtizConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API