Matyas v. Minck

72 Citing cases

  1. Reg'l Sch. Dist. 8 v. M & S Paving & Sealing, Inc.

    206 Conn. App. 523 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Declining to review claim not briefed, which was deemed abandoned

    (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Matyas v. Minck , 37 Conn. App. 321, 326–27, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995). Expert testimony is not required, however, if "the negligence is so gross as to be clear to a layperson."

  2. Santopietro v. City of New Haven

    239 Conn. 207 (Conn. 1996)   Cited 350 times
    Concluding that plaintiff failed to prove, by expert testimony, that softball umpires breached their duty of care to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to spectators

    If the determination of the standard of care requires knowledge that is beyond the experience of an ordinary fact finder, expert testimony will be required. Jaffe v. State Dept. of Health, 135 Conn. 339, 349, 64 A.2d 330 (1949); Sickmund v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 375, 379, 189 A. 876 (1937); Slimak v. Foster, 106 Conn. 366, 368, 138 A. 153 (1927); Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321, 326, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995); see State v. McClary, 207 Conn. 233, 245, 541 A.2d 96 (1988) (expert testimony required in criminal case because nature and cause of victim's injuries "manifestly beyond the ken of the average trier of fact, be it judge or jury"). We note that the plaintiffs' claims in the present case are akin to allegations of professional negligence or malpractice, which we have previously defined as "the failure of one rendering professional services to exercise that degree of skill and learning commonly applied under all the circumstances in the community by the average prudent reputable member of the profession with the result of injury, loss, or damage to the recipient of those services."

  3. Ramaj v. Marra

    No. 355988 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2022)

    Alfieri v Bertorelli, 295 Mich.App. 189, 193-194; 813 N.W.2d 772 (2012); Roberts, 280 Mich.App. at 403; Bergen v Baker, 264 Mich.App. 376, 385; 691 N.W.2d 770 (2004). See also Matyas v Minck, 37 Conn.App. 321, 338; 655 A.2d 1155 (1995); Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation, Environmental Liability Allocation Law & Practice § 9:41 (2021). Both fraudulent misrepresentation and silent fraud involve one party knowingly or recklessly deceiving another.

  4. Stein v. Tong

    117 Conn. App. 19 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 21 times
    Addressing claim not raised in preliminary statement of issues or statement of issues in brief where both parties briefed and argued issue

    Nonetheless, her failure to identify this claim in her preliminary statement of issues does not preclude this court from reviewing her claim unless the plaintiff is prejudiced thereby. See Simone v. Miller, 91 Conn. App. 98, 107 n. 3, 881 A.2d 397 (2005); Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321, 329 n. 5, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995). Specifically, the defendant's sixth claim was whether the court made findings that were clearly erroneous when it (1) made an ex parte visit to the property, (2) calculated the percentage of disability the plaintiff sustained to his leg and entire body, and (3) relied on Hartford's building code.

  5. Canale v. KBE Building Corp.

    UWYCV156026262S (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2017)

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn.App. 321, 326-27, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995). Generally speaking, professional malpractice claims are applicable to traditional professions, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects and engineers, as well as those who undertake any work calling for a special skill that requires a standard minimum of special knowledge and ability.

  6. Charter Oak Fire v. Karl Norton Arc.

    2008 Ct. Sup. 11771 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2008)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sickmund v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 375, 379, 189 A. 876 (1937); Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn.App. 321, 326, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995). "In cases involving claims of professional negligence . . . expert testimony is essential to establish both the standard of skill and care applicable and that the defendant failed to conform to the standard, as these matters are outside the knowledge of the jury."

  7. Thompson v. Putnam Kitchens

    2004 Ct. Sup. 19832 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn.App. 321, 326-27, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995). "[I]n the absence of expert testimony explaining how the work performed . . . failed to comply with that degree of care which a skilled builder of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same or similar conditions . . . and how that negligence caused the damages complained of, a factfinder could not properly have inferred that fact."

  8. SOMERS MILL ASSOC. v. FUSS O'NEILL

    2002 Ct. Sup. 2116 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)

    "In a [malpractice] case against an engineer, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce evidence as to what a skilled engineer of ordinary prudence engaged in the same line of business would have exercised in the same or similar circumstances." Winsted Land Development, supra, quoting Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321, 327 (1995). In the absence of expert testimony regarding the specific standard of care and a breach of that standard by Fuss O'Neill, the plaintiffs cannot establish that Fuss O'Neill's alleged conduct constituted a breach of the standard of care. See, Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321 (1995) (affirming the trial court's finding that, absent expert testimony, plaintiffs failed to prove breach of the standard of care by the engineer).

  9. Sceink v. Baker

    2000 Ct. Sup. 8294 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000)

    The defendant relies on Knight v. Breckheimer, 3 Conn. App. 487, 489 A.2d 1066 (1985), in which a provision regarding the septic system in a purchase and sale agreement did not survive delivery of the deed. Based on Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995) and Arsenault v. Crossen Builders, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. 096791 (May 2, 1991, Leuba, J.), this court finds that Knight is not controlling on the issue presented by this motion to strike. First, whether this court finds that the septic repair and upgrade portion of the contract is independent of the deed is a question of fact.

  10. Kashetta v. Robertucci

    1995 Ct. Sup. 12318 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    The elements of this cause of action are `(1) a representation of material fact (2) made for the purpose of inducing the purchase, (3) the representation is untrue, and (4) there is justifiable reliance by the plaintiff on the representation by the defendant and (5) damages.' Frimberger v. Anzellotti, 25 Conn. App. 401, 410, 594 A.2d 1029 (1991);Johnson v. Healy, 176 Conn. 97, 405 A.2d 54 (1978)." Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321, 333, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995). Count one recites that the Robertuccis made a representation that the septic system required only normal maintenance and cleaning.