The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

by Booth, George


AC42183 - Anthis v. Windom (Negligence; recklessness; motion in limine; motion for remittitur; motion to open; "The defendant, Robert D. Windom, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying various motions that he filed in the present action commenced by the plaintiff, Kristine S. Anthis, in favor of whom the court rendered judgment following a jury trial. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his (1) motion in limine, (2) motion for remittitur, and (3) motion to open, which, the defendant contends, effectively resulted in a double recovery by the plaintiff and a double payment by the defendant with respect to property damage expenses incurred by the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41333 - Greene v. Keating (Vexatious litigation pursuant to statute (§ 52-568); "The plaintiff, Brenda Greene, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant law firm, Rucci, Burnham, Carta, Carello & Reilly, LLP, in the plaintiff's vexatious litigation action. On appeal, Greene claims that the court improperly concluded that, although she had established one of her vexatious litigation claims against the defendant, the defendant was entitled to judgment in its favor because Greene failed to prove the amount of her damages. Specifically, Greene claims that the court improperly concluded that she failed to present evidence that would allow the court reasonably to calculate damages in the form of attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39574 - Osborn v. Waterbury (Negligence; "This negligence action against the defendants, the city of Waterbury (city) and the Waterbury Board of Education (board), concerns the injuries that the minor plaintiff, Tatayana Osborn (child), sustained during a lunchtime recess at her elementary school. This appeal returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court following its reversal of this panel's prior decision. See Osborn v. Waterbury, 333 Conn. 816, 834, 220 A.3d 1 (2019) (holding that expert testimony not necessary to determine whether 'the defendants adequately supervised the children"). Our Supreme Court remanded the case to us "to consider the defendants' remaining claims on appeal.' Id. Those claims are that 'the trial court improperly (1) rejected [the defendants'] special defense of governmental immunity for discretionary acts, (2) concluded that the plaintiffs' injuries were caused when an inadequate number of adults were assigned to supervise up to 400 students when there was evidence that there were no more than 50 students on the playground . . . and [(3)] awarded damages intended to encourage continued therapy and occupational training for the child in the absence of evidence that she would need such services in the future.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 821–22. We agree with the defendants' second claim and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for a new trial.")