Champagne v. Deming

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Champagne v. Deming

291 A.2d 229, 162 Conn. 609

DecidedDecember 10, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.2d 229 (Champagne v. Deming) 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

Champagne v. Deming, 291 A.2d 229, 162 Conn. 609 (Colo. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court’s charge on the special defense of the assumption of risk in effect removed that defense from the consideration of the jury. The charge was further prejudicial in that the jury were instructed that the failure of one of the defendants to testify “permits a strong inference that he could not vindicate his cause by his testimony.”

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to grant the motion to set the verdict aside.

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

Per Curiam.

The court’s charge on the special defense of the assumption of risk in effect removed that defense from the consideration of the jury. The charge was further prejudicial in that the jury were instructed that the failure of one of the defendants to testify “permits a strong inference that he could not vindicate his cause by his testimony.”

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to grant the motion to set the verdict aside.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.2d 229, 162 Conn. 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/champagne-v-deming-conn-1971.