Opinion · Connecticut Appellate Court Opinions
ORMSBY v. FRANKEL, 250 Conn. 926 (1999)
738 A.2d 658
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Connecticut Appellate Court Opinions
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut
- Date
- 1999-09-09
- Topic
- general
ORMSBY v. FRANKEL, 250 Conn. 926 (1999) 738 A.2d 658 CAROLYN ORMSBY v. EMIL FRANKEL, COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATIONSupreme Court of Connecticut The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 98 (AC 17621), is granted, limited to the following issues: "1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that evidence of recurring icing conditions in the year prior to the plaintiff's accident was relevant and admissible to prove constructive notice of the specific ice condition that caused the plaintiff's injury?
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed ORMSBY v. FRANKEL, 250 Conn. 926 (1999). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
ORMSBY v. FRANKEL,250 Conn. 926(1999)
738 A.2d 658
CAROLYN ORMSBY v. EMIL FRANKEL, COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
Supreme Court of Connecticut
"1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that evidence of recurring icing conditions in the year prior to the plaintiff's accident was relevant and admissible to prove constructive notice of the specific ice condition that caused the plaintiff's injury?
"2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that evidence of an accident one day prior to the plaintiff's accident, which was caused by a recurring icing condition, was properly admitted to prove constructive notice of the specific ice conditions that caused the plaintiff's injury where the evidence established that the condition did not exist at least most of the period between the two accidents?Page 927
"3. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the defendant had constructive notice of the icing condition?"
The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16187.
Decided September 9, 1999