Budney v. Zalot

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Budney v. Zalot

362 A.2d 861, 168 Conn. 388, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 965

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedApril 22, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 362 A.2d 861 (Budney v. Zalot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Budney v. Zalot, 362 A.2d 861, 168 Conn. 388, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 965 (Colo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole question on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing the plaintiff’s offer into evidence of a series of bills for medical examination, treatment and drugs in the absence of any medical expert testimony which would support a finding that there was any causal connection between the accident for which the plaintiff’s suit was brought and the services and drugs for which the bills were rendered. “To be entitled to damages a plaintiff must establish a causal relation between the injury and the physical condition which he claims resulted from it. Bates v. Carroll, 99 Conn. 677, 679, 122 A. 562. This causal connection must rest upon more than surmise or conjecture. Witkowski v. Goldberg, 115 Conn. 693, 696, 163 A. 413; Green v. Stone, 119 Conn. 300, 306, 176 A. 123. A trier is not concerned with possibilities but with reasonable probabilities. Richardson v. Pratt & Whit *389 ney Mfg. Co., 129 Conn. 669, 672, 30 A.2d 919. The cansal relation between an injury and its later physical effects may be established by the direct opinion of a physician, by his deduction by the process of eliminating causes other than the traumatic agency, or by his opinion based upon a hypothetical question.” Boland v. Vanderbilt, 140 Conn. 520, 525, 102 A.2d 362.

In the absence of any medical evidence whatsoever which would support a finding that the bills offered into evidence by the plaintiff were causally connected with the alleged negligence of the defendant, the court properly excluded the offered exhibits.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The sole question on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing the plaintiff’s offer into evidence of a series of bills for medical examination, treatment and drugs in the absence of any medical expert testimony which would support a finding that there was any causal connection between the accident for which the plaintiff’s suit was brought and the services and drugs for which the bills were rendered. “To be entitled to damages a plaintiff must establish a causal relation between the injury and the physical condition which he claims resulted from it. Bates v. Carroll, 99 Conn. 677, 679, 122 A. 562. This causal connection must rest upon more than surmise or conjecture. Witkowski v. Goldberg, 115 Conn. 693, 696, 163 A. 413; Green v. Stone, 119 Conn. 300, 306, 176 A. 123. A trier is not concerned with possibilities but with reasonable probabilities. Richardson v. Pratt & Whit *389 ney Mfg. Co., 129 Conn. 669, 672, 30 A.2d 919. The cansal relation between an injury and its later physical effects may be established by the direct opinion of a physician, by his deduction by the process of eliminating causes other than the traumatic agency, or by his opinion based upon a hypothetical question.” Boland v. Vanderbilt, 140 Conn. 520, 525, 102 A.2d 362.

In the absence of any medical evidence whatsoever which would support a finding that the bills offered into evidence by the plaintiff were causally connected with the alleged negligence of the defendant, the court properly excluded the offered exhibits.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 A.2d 861, 168 Conn. 388, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/budney-v-zalot-conn-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack