O'Connor v. O'Connor

492 A.2d 207, 4 Conn. App. 19, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 943
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedMay 14, 1985
Docket3290
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 492 A.2d 207 (O'Connor v. O'Connor) 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
O'Connor v. O'Connor, 492 A.2d 207, 4 Conn. App. 19, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 943 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action for damages resulting from injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a one car accident, which occurred in East St. Amstead, Quebec, Canada. She alleges that she sustained various injuries as a result of the accident, all of which were caused by the defendant’s negligent operation of the motor vehicle. The defendant filed a motion to strike, claiming that Quebec law applied to the present action and under that law the plaintiff had no cause of action. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike and rendered judgment for the defendant after the plaintiff declined to file a new pleading. The plaintiff, on appeal, urges us to “overrule” Gibson v. Fullin, 172 Conn. 407, 374 A.2d 1061 (1977), despite our status as an intermediate appellate court.

The law in Connecticut is clear that in motor vehicle cases “ ‘[t]he creation and extent of liability are fixed by the law of the state in which the tort is committed.’ Bissonnette v. Bissonnette, 145 Conn. 733, 734, 142 A.2d 527 [1958]; see Murray v. Milford, Connecticut, 380 F.2d 468, 470 (2d Cir. [1967]); Menczer v. Menczer, 160 Conn. 563, 280 A.2d 875 [1971]; Landers v. Landers, 153 Conn. 303, 304, 216 A.2d 183 [1966]; Bohenek v. Niedzwiecki, 142 Conn. 278, 283, 113 A.2d 509 [1955].” Gibson v. Fullin, supra, 411. In the face of this uniform and recent Supreme Court precedent, whether the traditional rule of lex loci delicti should be reevaluated and possibly discarded in appropriate circumstances is not for this court to decide.

There is no error.

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

Related

Donegan v. Gardner, No. Cv 01 0085057s (Oct. 4, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13945 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
676 A.2d 831 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996)
Martin v. Town of Plainville
669 A.2d 1241 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1996)
State v. Zaporta
650 A.2d 582 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1994)
Bombero v. Planning & Zoning Commission
550 A.2d 1098 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
State v. Summerville
535 A.2d 818 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
State v. Thurman
523 A.2d 891 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
State v. Weisser
518 A.2d 655 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)
Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Ass'n
518 A.2d 394 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)
State v. Knighton
508 A.2d 772 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)
State v. Hodge
497 A.2d 79 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1985)
D'Arcy v. Shugrue
496 A.2d 967 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1985)
In re David E.
496 A.2d 229 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1985)
O'Connor v. O'Connor
495 A.2d 280 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
492 A.2d 207, 4 Conn. App. 19, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnor-v-oconnor-connappct-1985.