Legal Opinion
Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 6, 2003No. SC 16700PublishedCited by 81 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NORCOTT, J.
The dispositive issue in this appeal involves the viability of the doctrine of superseding cause. The plaintiffs, Neil Barry, Diana Barry, Bernard Cohade and Lynn Cohade,1 appeal2 from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the named defendant, Quality Steel Products, Inc. (Quality Steel), and the defendant Ring’s End, Inc. (Ring’s End). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the doctrine of superseding cause because: (1) the alleged negligence of the plaintiffs’ employer, DeLuca Construction Company (DeLuca), was not…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ferryman v. City of GrotonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Home Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Coburn v. Lenox Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Doe v. ManheimerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by81 opinions
- Powell v. Infinity InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Label Systems Corp. v. Samad AghamohammadiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Allstate Insurance v. BarronSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Ryan Transportation, Inc. v. M & G AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.