Olstza v. Fenton

Connecticut Appellate Court

Olstza v. Fenton

560 A.2d 992, 19 Conn. App. 802, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 217, 1989 WL 78245

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 16, 1989

Docket7091

StatusPublished

This text of 560 A.2d 992 (Olstza v. Fenton) 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

Olstza v. Fenton, 560 A.2d 992, 19 Conn. App. 802, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 217, 1989 WL 78245 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants in this medical malpractice action. The sole issue raised is whether the trial court correctly charged the jury on the foreseeability of harm. The charge given by the trial court in this case comports with the charge on foreseeability of harm approved by our Supreme Court in Pisel v. Stamford Hospital, 180 Conn. 314, 331-32, 430 A.2d 1 (1980).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants in this medical malpractice action. The sole issue raised is whether the trial court correctly charged the jury on the foreseeability of harm. The charge given by the trial court in this case comports with the charge on foreseeability of harm approved by our Supreme Court in Pisel v. Stamford Hospital, 180 Conn. 314, 331-32, 430 A.2d 1 (1980).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 A.2d 992, 19 Conn. App. 802, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 217, 1989 WL 78245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olstza-v-fenton-connappct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack