Diener v. Tiago

4 Citing cases

  1. Stanziale v. Hunt

    219 Conn. App. 71 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    im that court improperly admitted testimony of police officer estimating speed at which plaintiff's bicycle was traveling when it struck speed bump because that claim related only to defendant's special defense of contributory negligence, not to plaintiff's own claim that speed bump was dangerous, defective, and unsafe), appeal dismissed, 337 Conn. 574, 254 A.3d 865 (2020) ; Modugno v. Colony Farms of Colchester, Inc. , 110 Conn. App. 200, 202, 204–205, 954 A.2d 270 (2008) (in premises liability action stemming from plaintiff's tripping over rocky terrain on defendant's premises, general verdict rule barred review of claim that court improperly denied motion for new trial that challenged exclusion from evidence of testimony regarding zoning regulations, permit requirements, and site plan because that evidence related only to premises liability claim and not to defendant's special defenses that plaintiff was comparatively negligent and that dangerous condition was open and notorious); Diener v. Tiago , 80 Conn. App. 597, 601–602, 836 A.2d 1224 (2003) (in negligence case stemming from motor vehicle accident, general verdict rule barred review of claim that court improperly denied motion to set aside verdict on basis of its exclusion from evidence of photographs depicting defendant's skid marks specifically offered to identify location of cars before, at or after impact because that evidence was not relevant to defendant's special defense that plaintiff had negligently caused accident and its consequences by failing to use proper warning signals prior to accident); Rivezzi v. Marcucio , 55 Conn. App. 309, 311–13, 738 A.2d 731 (1999) (in case involving negligence claim stemming from plaintiff's falling off dirt bike when it hit large rock defendant previously had pushed into bike path, general verdict rule barred review of claim that court improperly admitted into evidence hearsay statement within hospital record that plaintiff was traveling at seventy miles per hour because that evidence was relevant only to whether plaintiff was c

  2. CAVALLO-SNYDER v. WOHL ASSOCIATES, INC.

    2011 Ct. Sup. 10148 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)

    D'Alesandro v. Clare, 74 Conn.App. 177, 180-81, 812 A.2d 76 (2002)Diener v. Tiago, 80 Conn.App. 597, 600-01 (2003), citing to D'Alesandro v. Clare, 74 Conn.App. 177, 180-81 (2002). By his Answer, the defendant denied the plaintiff's claim of negligence and asserted a special defense of the plaintiff's comparative negligence.

  3. Bennett v. Chenault

    147 Conn. App. 198 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    Our conclusion that the general verdict rule applies is dispositive of the plaintiff's appeal and precludes the need to address the errors cited in her brief. See Diener v. Tiago, 80 Conn.App. 597, 603, 836 A.2d 1224 (2003) (“Application of the general verdict rule ... precludes our review of the plaintiff's claim of error.... We have no need to consider whether the court's evidentiary ruling was proper or, if not, whether its ruling was harmless. The claimed error does not undermine the jury's presumed finding in the defendant's favor on his special defense.

  4. Modugno v. Colony Farms of Colchester, Inc.

    110 Conn. App. 200 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    Therefore, to determine if the general verdict rule precludes our review of the plaintiff's claims, we must determine whether the claimed improprieties relate to either of the two grounds on which the jury might have based its verdict. See Diener v. Tiago, 80 Conn. App. 597, 602, 836 A.2d 1224 (2003). The plaintiff first claims that because the defendant failed to introduce medical records to show that the plaintiff had ceased treating her alleged injury for a certain period of time, the court improperly permitted the defendant to argue that the plaintiff had done so. Our careful review of the record reveals that this claim is in no way relevant to whether the plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent or whether any defective condition on the defendant's property may have been open and notorious, as alleged in the defendant's two special defenses.