Cadrain v. Kent Condominiums, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Cadrain v. Kent Condominiums, Inc.

590 A.2d 475, 24 Conn. App. 554, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 135

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMay 7, 1991

Docket9419

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 590 A.2d 475 (Cadrain v. Kent Condominiums, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cadrain v. Kent Condominiums, Inc., 590 A.2d 475, 24 Conn. App. 554, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 135 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brings this appeal from a jury verdict rendered for the defendants. The action arises from the plaintiffs fall due to ice and snow in the parking area of the condominiums where the plaintiff resided. The plaintiff also brought suit against the corporation that performed the snow plowing services for the condominiums. In their answers, both defendants denied that they were negligent and alleged by way of special defense that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly failed to charge the jury that General Statutes §§ 47-80 and 47-244 create a statutory duty of care, a violation of which would be actionable negligence. There is no merit to the plaintiffs claim that these statutes create such a duty. We need not address that claim, however. The plaintiff makes no claim relating to the court’s charge on contributory negligence. Since the plaintiff made no attempt to submit interrogatories as permitted by Practice Book § 312, the general verdict of the jury in favor of the defendants creates a presumption that all of the issues were found for the defendants. Hanlon v. Stettbacher, 13 Conn. App. 571, 573, 538 A.2d 705 (1988).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brings this appeal from a jury verdict rendered for the defendants. The action arises from the plaintiffs fall due to ice and snow in the parking area of the condominiums where the plaintiff resided. The plaintiff also brought suit against the corporation that performed the snow plowing services for the condominiums. In their answers, both defendants denied that they were negligent and alleged by way of special defense that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly failed to charge the jury that General Statutes §§ 47-80 and 47-244 create a statutory duty of care, a violation of which would be actionable negligence. There is no merit to the plaintiffs claim that these statutes create such a duty. We need not address that claim, however. The plaintiff makes no claim relating to the court’s charge on contributory negligence. Since the plaintiff made no attempt to submit interrogatories as permitted by Practice Book § 312, the general verdict of the jury in favor of the defendants creates a presumption that all of the issues were found for the defendants. Hanlon v. Stettbacher, 13 Conn. App. 571, 573, 538 A.2d 705 (1988).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 A.2d 475, 24 Conn. App. 554, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadrain-v-kent-condominiums-inc-connappct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack