Serrano & Serrano, LLC - Connecticut Lawyers - Accidents, Divorce, Social Security Disability, Immigration, Bankruptcy - Hartford 860 236-9350 * Waterbury 203 729-6100 * Toll-Free 800 856-6400

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

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)

   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 Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Dias v. Grady (SC 18265) July 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Rockville

Synopsis:  To file a medical malpractice case, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a requires a good faith belief that grounds exist for the case.  The plaintiff must provide a written opinion from a similar health care provider that the defendant had breached the standard of care.  However, it is not necessary that the written opinion state that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries.  The plaintiff’s good faith belief regarding causation may be based on consultation with nonsimilar health care providers or on other reasonable grounds.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR292/292cr91.pdf

Case Citation:  292 Conn. 350, 972 A.2d 715 (2009)

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Sullivan v. Metro-North (SC 17739) June 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  Although the doctrine of superseding cause may not be usually applied to negligence cases, it may apply to cases where a defendant claims that an unforeseeable intentional tort, force of nature, or criminal event supersedes its tortious conduct.  A jury may consider whether the doctrine should apply in this case where the defendant  train company claims that its alleged negligent failure to safeguard a station was superseded by an unforeseeable criminal act resulting in the shooting death of a train patron.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR292/292CR94.pdf

Case Citation:  292 Conn. 150, 971 A.2d 676 (2009)

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Vermont Mutual Ins. Co. v. Walukiewicz (SC 18061) March 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Norwich

Synopsis:  A homeowner’s insurance policy that excludes coverage for intentionally caused injuries must still cover injuries caused in self-defense.  Although a person defending himself or herself may intend to cause an injury, acts of self-defense are a response to unexpected, unforeseen and unintended events and therefore are “accidents.”

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR38.pdf

Case Citation:  290 Conn. 582 (2009)

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Costanzo v. Gray (AC 29228) February 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Danbury

Synopsis:  Patient sued orthopedic surgeon who was to perform a left side L4-L5 microdiscectomy but instead performed the surgery from the right side.  Surgeon admitted he had mistakenly written on the chart that the patient had complained of right side symptoms.  At trial, the doctor’s expert witness testified that the doctor had in fact performed a left microdiscectomy but had used a right side approach known as a contralateral approach.  The jury found that the doctor had not committed malpractice.  The verdict was upheld on appeal.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP147.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Benedetto v. Zaku (AC 28995) February 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Stamford - Norwalk

Synopsis:  Jury awarded driver hurt in car crash money for future back surgery but not for pain and suffering.  Trial court added money for pain and suffering.  The appellate court agreed with the trial court, stating that the jury’s verdict awarding the plaintiff almost $9,000 in past medical bills and $50,000 toward the cost of future surgery without any compensation for noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) was improper as a matter of law.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP141.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Davis v. Davis (AC 29188) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  New London

Synopsis:  Conduct does not need to be unreasonable, outrageous or egregious for a plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. It is sufficient if the emotional distress caused by the conduct is severe enough to cause illness or bodily harm.

Case Link:  http://www.serranolawyers.com/wpress/wp-admin/post-new.php

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (AC 28387) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Middletown

Synopsis:  The plaintiff filed a lawsuit after an accident at a store where a metal unit hit her head, neck and shoulder.  Her doctor’s testimony about a second shoulder surgery was properly excluded because she had reinjured the shoulder lifting a twelve-pack of soda.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP101.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Tocco v. Wesleyan University (AC 28928) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Middletown

Synopsis:  The plaintiff suffered a personal injury at Wesleyan’s ice rink.  Wesleyan served an apportionment complaint on the Hamden Figure Skating Association.  The association did not appear in the lawsuit.  The plaintiff then made a claim against the association for the accident by mailing an amended complaint to the association.  The appellate court ruled that the case against the association was properly dismissed because Practice Book § 10-12 (c) requires that claims against a party who has not appeared must be served on the party. 

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Kelly v. Univ. of Conn. Health Center (SC 17884) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Middletown

Synopsis:  The statute of limitations period for negligence cases begins to run when the injury is first discovered or should have been discovered.  The harm complained of need not have reached its fullest manifestation in order for the limitation period to begin to run.  This is especially so with regard to discovering the presence of a foreign object in one’s body after undergoing surgery. Such a presence indicates such obvious medical malpractice as to be clear even to a lay person.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR25.pdf

   For Car Accident Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  National Grange Mutual Ins. Co. v. Santaniello (SC 17961) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Britain

Synopsis:  Customer’s operation of used car sold by repair garage deemed not incidental to garage’s operations despite use of repair plates on car at time of fatal injury.  Thus, garage operation insurance policy did not cover wrongful death claim arising from accident.

Case Link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR23.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  (AC 28962) October 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Middletown

Synopsis:  As homeowner’s insurance policy excluded covering injuries caused by criminal acts, the insurance company was not required to cover the damages the homeowner caused his neighbor by spying on her.  The homeowner, who was charged with trespass, disorderly conduct, voyeurism and stalking, pled guilty to disorderly conduct and admitted during a deposition that his actions were crimes.

Case Link:   http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP517.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Read v. Town of Plymouth (AC 28523) October 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  New Britain

Synopsis:  Resident of Plymouth who was hurt after a trip and fall accident at the town’s waste transfer station could sue the town and municipal employees for negligence and nuisance but could not sue under the defective public highway statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149, because the transfer station was not open to the general public but only to town residents.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110ap501.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Gargano v. Azpiri (AC 28527) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Ansonia - Milford

Synopsis:  A possessor of property owes two separate duties to an invitee (a person coming onto property for business or a purpose for which the land is held open to the public), (1) to inspect the property and maintain it in a reasonably safe condition, and (2) to warn of dangers that the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover.  An electrician’s helper fell through a hole in the floor of a house being renovated.  The helper knew the hole was there before falling through it.  The Appellate Court held that although the possessor of the property did not owe a duty to the helper to warn of the hole, the possessor still owed the helper the duty to inspect the property and maintain it in safe condition.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP490.pdf

   For  Automobile Accident Help Click This Line 

Case:  Stiffler v. Continental Ins. Co. (SC 17761) July 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court: Stamford - Norwalk

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR288/288CR121.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Hernandex v. Dawson (AC 28842) August 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  A teenager was riding a bicycle in an area where children and young teens congregate and play.  After being hit in the head by a ”fuzz” football, he turned around, his face struck the jagged top edge of an unpainted metal fence post adjoining the sidewalk, and he lacerated his face, leaving a permanent scar.  The area was dark and the fence post had been in that condition for about a year.  The jury’s conclusion that the plaintiff was not comparatively negligent for his bicycle accident was upheld on appeal.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP109/109AP432.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Clinch v. Generali-U.S. Branch (AC 28784) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  The plaintiff obtained a judgment against a restaurant after he was assaulted by intoxicated patrons.  The restaurant’s insurance company refused to defend the claim because the policy excluded coverage for assault and battery.  The court upheld the coverage exclusion, even though the complaint did not use the words “assault and battery,” because the acts complained of clearly referred to an assault and battery.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP461.pdf

   For Car Accident Help Click This Line 

Case:  Taylor v. Mucci (SC 18062) August 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New London

Synopsis:  A parent who saw her son injured in a car crash cannot recover under a separate per person limit because her claim of bystander emotional distress did not constitute a ‘‘bodily injury’’ under the terms of the automobile insurance policy in question.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR288/288cr128.pdf