" (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,
(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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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)).
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).
(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.