Tetreault v. Eslick

24 Citing cases

  1. Garcia v. Cohen

    335 Conn. 3 (Conn. 2020)   Cited 7 times
    In Garcia v. Cohen, supra, 335 Conn. 3, we addressed whether the Appellate Court properly declined to review the plaintiffs instructional claim under the general verdict rule "because the plaintiff had failed to object when the trial court denied her request to submit her proposed interrogatories to the jury"; id., 5; rendering it unclear whether the jury's verdict was predicated on a finding that the defendants were not negligent or on a finding that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tetreault v. Eslick , 271 Conn. 466, 471–72, 857 A.2d 888 (2004). We have said that the general verdict rule applies to the following five situations: "(1) denial of separate counts of a complaint; (2) denial of separate defenses pleaded as such; (3) denial of separate legal theories of recovery or defense pleaded in one count or defense,

  2. Malaguit v. Ski Sundown, Inc.

    136 Conn. App. 381 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 8 times
    In Malaguit, the plaintiff brought a negligence claim against the owner and operator of a ski area, alleging that the defendant created a hazard not inherent in the sport of skiing by building and maintaining a snow jump.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tetreault v. Eslick, 271 Conn. 466, 472, 857 A.2d 888 (2004). In the present case, the plaintiff made a timely request for interrogatories, but the court declined to submit them to the jury.

  3. State v. Smith

    869 A.2d 171 (Conn. 2005)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that "[o]ur state law reflects a legislative determination that cocaine is a dangerous drug, particularly when consumed by a young person" and that numerous statutes prohibit its possession, sale, transport and like conduct

    Accordingly, we deem the claim abandoned. See Tetreault v. Eslick, 271 Conn. 466, 473 n. 7, 857 A.2d 888 (2004). As a preliminary matter, we set forth the standard of review.

  4. Smith v. Comm'r of Corr.

    225 Conn. App. 822 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, we deem any such claim abandoned. See Tetreault v. Eslick, 271 Conn. 466, 471 n.5, 857 A.2d 888 (2004).The petitioner cites the following statement of the respondent's counsel just prior to the court’s acceptance of the withdrawal with prejudice: "There’s certain recent case law that discusses [the issue of withdrawal with prejudice], but I'm not certain at what juncture it discusses the ramifications of with prejudice, forcing someone to withdraw with prejudice prior to the start of evidence, so I do believe that [the filing of a new petition is] something that we probably would object to, but it could be hashed out at a later point.

  5. Bennett v. Chenault

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

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tetreault v. Eslick, 271 Conn. 466, 471–72, 857 A.2d 888 (2004). The plaintiff claims that we are able to review her claims of error because the general verdict rule does not apply.

  6. Macdermid, Inc. v. Leonetti

    328 Conn. 726 (Conn. 2018)   Cited 36 times
    Concluding that defendant preserved defense because it could be inferred from his motions and because ‘‘the sine qua non of preservation is fair notice'' to trial court and to parties

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tetreault v. Eslick , 271 Conn. 466, 471, 857 A.2d 888 (2004). As such, the general verdict rule precludes an appeal claiming instructional error when the jury could have decided the case on a ground not implicated by the challenged instruction.

  7. Hall v. Bergman

    296 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2010)   Cited 72 times
    In Hall, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff as to liability on her claims of unjust enrichment and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress but awarded zero damages.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tetreault v. Eslick, 271 Conn. 466, 471, 857 A.2d 888 (2004). "The rule applies whenever a verdict for one party could reasonably be rendered on one or more distinct causes of action . . . or distinct defenses. . . . A party desiring to avoid the effects of the general verdict rule may elicit the specific grounds for the verdict by submitting interrogatories to the jury. Alternatively, if the action is in separate counts, a party may seek separate verdicts on each of the counts.

  8. Skender v. Brunsonbuilt Constr

    122 Nev. 1430 (Nev. 2006)   Cited 56 times
    Referring to the rule as the “general verdict rule”

    Tavaglione v. Billings, 847 P.2d 574, 579 (Cal. 1993).Tetreault v. Eslick, 857 A.2d 888, 892 (Conn. 2004) (quoting Kalams v. Giacchetto, 842 A.2d 1100, 1107 (Conn. 2004)).

  9. Stanziale v. Hunt

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

    The cases cited by the parties on appeal do not undermine but, rather, confirm this point. See Tetreault v. Eslick , 271 Conn. 466, 473, 857 A.2d 888 (2004) (general verdict rule barred review of claim challenging superseding cause special defense because claim did not contest plaintiffs’ failure to establish defendants’ negligence); Morales v. Moore , 85 Conn. App. 208, 211, 855 A.2d 1041 (2004) (general verdict rule barred review of claim challenging sudden emergency doctrine instruction because claim related only to defendants’ alleged negligence, not to plaintiff's alleged comparative negligence).

  10. Garcia v. Cohen

    188 Conn. App. 380 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding that general verdict rule applied because plaintiff failed to object to trial court’s decision not to submit proposed interrogatories to jury and that instructional error claim was not reviewable because plaintiff failed to raise independent claim on appeal challenging court’s decision as to her interrogatories

    (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Tetreault v. Eslick , 271 Conn. 466, 472, 857 A.2d 888 (2004). In the present case, the defendants denied the allegations of the complaint and pleaded special defenses.