From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thergood v. Comm'r of Corr.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 8, 2013
60 A.3d 741 (Conn. 2013)

Opinion

2013-01-8

Roland Todd WHITE v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., et al.

Frank J. McCoy, Jr., Tolland, and Alexander J. Sarris, in support of the petition. Paul D. Williams and John W. Cerreta, Hartford, in opposition.


Frank J. McCoy, Jr., Tolland, and Alexander J. Sarris, in support of the petition. Paul D. Williams and John W. Cerreta, Hartford, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 139 Conn.App. 39, 54 A.3d 643, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff had failed to raise the malfunction theory claim at trial?

“2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, did the plaintiff present a prima facie case under the ‘malfunction theory’ of products liability?”


Summaries of

Thergood v. Comm'r of Corr.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 8, 2013
60 A.3d 741 (Conn. 2013)
Case details for

Thergood v. Comm'r of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:Lamont THERGOOD v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Jan 8, 2013

Citations

60 A.3d 741 (Conn. 2013)
307 Conn. 949

Citing Cases

White v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.

Second, “[i]f the answer to the first question is in the negative, did the plaintiff present a prima facie…