Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

908 A.2d 545, 280 Conn. 919, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 392
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided September 27, 2006·No. SC 17739·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 96 Conn. App. 741 (AC 24895), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s ruling precluding the expert testimony of John W. Kennish, an expert in premises security, on the [920]*920ground that he had no experience, training or special knowledge relating to railroad security systems?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17739. Decided September 27, 2006 John H. Van Lenten, in support of the petition. Robert C. E. Laney, Charles A. Deluca and Sarah F. DePanfilis, in opposition.

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s jury instruction on superseding and intervening causes?”

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

Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 908 A.2d 545, 280 Conn. 919, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 392 (Colo. 2006).

908 A.2d 545 (Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad
971 A.2d 676 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2009)