Legal Opinion · Dissent

Larensen v. Karp

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided October 11, 1983No. (2273)Published

1DissentDupont, J.

I do not agree that the admission, over the objection of the plaintiff, of the out-of-court experiment performed by the plaintiffs witness at the scene of the accident, was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The principal issue in the case was the nighttime visibility of the plaintiffs motorcycle.The defendant operator testified that he did not see any headlight on the plaintiffs motorcycle, and that there was no light on the motorcycle after the accident. The police officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident testified that the motorcycle’s headlight was not shining…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. VennardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
  2. Wray v. Fairfield Amusement Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  3. DuBose v. CarabettaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
  4. McPheters v. LoomisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
  5. State v. CastagnaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976

5 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