Myers v. Menghi

Connecticut Appellate Court

Myers v. Menghi

488 A.2d 844, 3 Conn. App. 391, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 874

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 19, 1985

Docket2594

StatusPublished

This text of 488 A.2d 844 (Myers v. Menghi) 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

Myers v. Menghi, 488 A.2d 844, 3 Conn. App. 391, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 874 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:.

The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment on a jury verdict for the defendants.¹ They claim the single error of the court’s refusal to admit into evidence a written statement of the defendant Natalie Menghi.

The plaintiffs had alleged, in part, that the car which Menghi was driving was rolling at the time the minor plaintiff’s bicycle collided with it. They also had alleged that Menghi violated General Statutes § 14-243 (a), which prohibits moving a vehicle from a parked position until such movement can be made in reasonable safety.

During the trial, the plaintiffs offered, as an admission, a written statement that Menghi had given to the investigating police officer. The statement indicated that she was indeed rolling at the time of the accident. The court sustained the defendants’ objection to the admission of that evidence.

[392]*392The court erred in failing to admit into evidence, as an admission of a party-opponent, Menghi’s statement to the investigating police officer. Bonner v. Winter, 175 Conn. 41, 44, 392 A.2d 436 (1978); Holden & Daly, Connecticut Evidence (1966 & Sup. 1983) § 101. “This admission had a direct and vital bearing on the decisive issue in the case.” Bonner v. Winter, supra, 44-45. Therefore, the court’s erroneous ruling was harmful and the plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.

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

Per Curiam:.

The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment on a jury verdict for the defendants.¹ They claim the single error of the court’s refusal to admit into evidence a written statement of the defendant Natalie Menghi.

The plaintiffs had alleged, in part, that the car which Menghi was driving was rolling at the time the minor plaintiff’s bicycle collided with it. They also had alleged that Menghi violated General Statutes § 14-243 (a), which prohibits moving a vehicle from a parked position until such movement can be made in reasonable safety.

During the trial, the plaintiffs offered, as an admission, a written statement that Menghi had given to the investigating police officer. The statement indicated that she was indeed rolling at the time of the accident. The court sustained the defendants’ objection to the admission of that evidence.

[392]*392The court erred in failing to admit into evidence, as an admission of a party-opponent, Menghi’s statement to the investigating police officer. Bonner v. Winter, 175 Conn. 41, 44, 392 A.2d 436 (1978); Holden & Daly, Connecticut Evidence (1966 & Sup. 1983) § 101. “This admission had a direct and vital bearing on the decisive issue in the case.” Bonner v. Winter, supra, 44-45. Therefore, the court’s erroneous ruling was harmful and the plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 A.2d 844, 3 Conn. App. 391, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-menghi-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack