Case:  Cotto v. Board of Education (SC 18339) December 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  Governmental immunity applied to shield the New Haven Board of Education from liability for personal injury suffered by a youth director who fell on a wet bathroom floor.  The general rule is that municipal employees are not liable for an accident caused by negligence.  One exception to this rule is if the employee’s actions are likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm.  School children attending public schools during school hours fall within this exception.  The youth director’s slip and fall, however, did not fit within this exception in that the risk of specific harm to him was not sufficiently immediate because any person using the bathroom could have slipped at any time.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR150.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 265 (Conn. 2009)

Case:  State v. Nathan J. (SC 17903) December 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court 

Synopsis:  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-18 states that a parent or guardian may use reasonable physical force upon a minor if the parent or guardian reasonably believes such force is necessary to maintain discipline or promote the minor’s welfare.  This statute applies to the felony crime of risk of injury.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR9.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 243 (2009)

Case:  Wilcox v. Webster Ins. (SC 18317) November 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  Because the persons making personal injury or wrongful death claims as a result of a multi-car accident on Avon Mountain claimed that the company’s owner and member were responsible for the company’s conduct, both the owner and member had legal standing to claim that they were an insured under the company’s liability insurance policy.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR6.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 206, 982 A.2d 1053  (2009)

Case:  State v. Grant (SC 18177) November 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Bridgeport

Synopsis:  A BB gun is a firearm for purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat.

§ 53-202k which provides for a mandatory 5 year prison sentence for any person who uses or threatens the use of a firearm while committing a Class A, B or C felony.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR139.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 151, 982 A.2d 169 (Conn. 2009)

Case:  DiNuzzo v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet Geo, Inc. (SC 17869) November 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

District:  New Haven

Synopsis:  Although the deceased worker’s treating physician testified that his work-related injury resulted in inactivity and obesity that led to a heart attack, without some evidence establishing that the worker in fact suffered a fatal heart attack or actually suffered from atherosclerotic heart disease, the causal link between the compensable injury and the alleged manner of death simply was too weak to support a reasonable inference that the two events were connected.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294cr756.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 132, 982 A.2d 157 (Conn. 2009)

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Kaczynski v. Kaczynski (SC 18235) November 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Bridgeport

Synopsis:  The old rule was that if a trial court did not indicate which standard of proof had been used, it was presumed the court applied the standard of a fair preponderance of the evidence.  The new rule is that if a trial court in a case requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence fails to state what standard of proof it has applied, a reviewing court will presume that the correct standard was used.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294cr5.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 121, 981 A.2d 1068 (Conn. 2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Fernando A. (SC 18045, 18103) April 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Synopsis:  If a protective order is entered after an arrest for domestic violence, the defendant can request a more extensive hearing about whether the order needs to remain in place.  At the hearing, the state must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the protective order needs to continue to protect the victim.  The state may offer reliable hearsay evidence and the trial court can decide whether testimony from the complainant or other witnesses is necessary for the protective order to continue. The defendant may testify or present witnesses and may cross-examine any state witnesses.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR144.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 1, 981 A.2d 427 (2009)

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Earlington v. Anastasi (SC 18042, 18044) August 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  In a medical malpractice lawsuit against an obstetrician and hospital for a baby born with paralysis from nerve damage during labor, the jury awarded economic damages of $1,588,000 although plaintiff’s attorney asked for $1,020,117.  On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the jury’s award was not supported by the evidence because the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert’s did not support an award greater than the plaintiffs sought.  The Court ordered the plaintiffs to remit the difference or accept a new trial.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR293/293cr161.pdf

Case Citation:  293 Conn. 194 (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Morelli (SC18047) April 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Norwalk

Synopsis:  A jury could find a defendant in a drunk driving case guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor who admitted to consuming alcohol, had accelerated into an intersection where an accident occurred, had acted belligerently toward the responding police officers, and had displayed a consciousness of guilt by refusing a breathalyzer test.  proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR293/293cr122.pdf

Case Citation:  293 Conn. 147, 976 A.2d 678 (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Long (SC18245 ) August 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  A golden rule argument improperly urges jurors to put themselves in a party’s place or into a party’s shoes, encouraging jurors to depart from neutrality and decide on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.  The prosecutor’s statement in a risk of injury and sexual assault case to “think of what it would be like as [C] is sitting, having to explain to somebody what happened to her,” was not an improper golden rule argument or an improper request for sympathy.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR293/293CR105.pdf

Case Citation:  293 Conn. 31, 975 A.2d 660 (2009)