Norrie v. Heil Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtHull, J.
After a trial to a jury in this strict liability action, judgment was rendered for the defendant. From this judgment, the plaintiffs have appealed, claiming that the trial court erred: (1) in effectively charging the jury that contributory negligence is a defense to an action in strict tort liability; (2) in using special interrogatories which inaccurately described the applicable law and confused the jury; and (3) in accepting a jury verdict finding the conduct of the named plaintiff both foreseeable and not foreseeable.
*596The jury could reasonably have found the following facts. The plaintiff,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Giglio v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Ubysz v. DiPietroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Waldron v. RaccioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Herb v. KerrSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Bovat v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.