Opinion · Supreme Court of Connecticut
Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
225 Conn. 925
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut
- Date
- 1993-05-04
- Topic
- general
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 664 (AC 11185), is granted, limited to the following issues: “1. Where the defense of alteration/modification of a product is asserted as a defense to a product liability claim, and there is evidence to support that defense, is the defendant entitled to a jury instruction on that defense separate and apart from any instruction on the issue of misuse of the product? “2. Where it is claimed that misuse of a product is the proximate cause of an injury, and there is evidence to support that defense, is the defendant entitled to an instruction that if the jury so finds, the plaintiff is barred from recovery?”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 664 (AC 11185), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Where the defense of alteration/modification of a product is asserted as a defense to a product liability claim, and there is evidence to support that defense, is the defendant entitled to a jury instruction on that defense separate and apart from any instruction on the issue of misuse of the product?
“2. Where it is claimed that misuse of a product is the proximate cause of an injury, and there is evidence to support that defense, is the defendant entitled to an instruction that if the jury so finds, the plaintiff is barred from recovery?”