Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MARGARITA MELO ET AL. v. CHARLES SPENCER, JR. (AC 20227)
Lavery, C. J., and Landau and Freedman, Js. Argued January 16--officially released April 10, 2001 Counsel

Michael T. Bologna, with whom, on the brief, were Dominick J. Rutigliano and Gwen E. Murray, for the appellant (defendant). Eugene A. Skowronski, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Opinion

FREEDMAN, J. The defendant, Charles Spencer, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it granted the motion filed by the plaintiffs1 to set aside the jury verdict for the defendant and ordered a new trial in this negligence action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiffs brought this action for damages sustained in an automobile accident that occurred on January 14, 1995, when the plaintiffs' vehicle struck the defendant's

vehicle. The plaintiffs maintained at trial that the defendant caused the accident by making a darting left turn in front of them from a northbound, nonturning lane against a traffic signal that required him to stop. The defendant asserted that he had turned left on a green arrow from the proper lane when the plaintiffs' vehicle in a far right southbound lane struck him after he had gone through the intersection and was entering the cross street. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to set aside the verdict, claiming, inter alia, that they were improperly precluded from presenting expert testimony from Officer Vincent Vizzo of the Derby police department due to the court's mistaken belief that Vizzo had not been disclosed as an expert witness pursuant to Practice Book

Download Melo v. Spencer.pdf

Connecticut Law