Legal Opinion

Norrie v. Heil Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 26, 1987No. 12851PublishedCited by 29 opinions

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

  1. Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Giglio v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  3. Ubysz v. DiPietroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  4. Waldron v. RaccioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
  5. Herb v. KerrSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  2. Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  3. Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
  4. Bovat v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  5. Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994

24 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