Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)

Citation
Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)
Parent Document
Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1995-10-10

Other Sections in This Document (94)

Full Text

1,348 chars
The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s refusal to set aside the verdict, concluding that the trial court had improperly directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the strict liability counts. Gore v. People’s Savings Bank, supra, 35 Conn. App. 128-29. In doing so, the Appellate Court first determined that violations of §§ 47a-7 (a) (2), 47a-8 and 47a-54f (b)9 constitute negligence per se for the purposes of a claim brought on behalf of a minor injured by lead-based paint in the landlord’s apartment. Id., 132-34. In particular, the Appellate Court determined, on the basis of the language of these statutory provisions and their legislative history, that the provisions satisfied the two-prong test for negligence per se: (1) that the plaintiffs were within the class of persons protected by the statute; and (2) *369that the injury suffered is of the type that the statute was intended to prevent. Id., 130-34.10 The Appellate Court then concluded that “[bjecause we construe the statute as meeting the threshold dual criteria for imposition of statutory civil liability pursuant to negligence per se, but lacking any provision for an excuse for the violation, we conclude that the legislature intended that the statute provide for strict liability upon proof of a violation of the statute and proximate causation.” Id., 135-36.