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

1,110 chars
Because the Appellate Court reversed the decision and remanded the case for a new trial on this basis, it did not reach the plaintiffs’ other claims, including “whether the trial court improperly (1) instructed the jury that the plaintiffs had the burden of proof with respect to actual or constructive notice of the violation of the statute concerning lead paint, (2) instructed *370the jury that the defendants were entitled to a reasonable time after notice to make the necessary repairs pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-7 (a) (2), and (3) refused to allow the plaintiffs to question a witness regarding the presence of lead-based paint in other apartments owned by the defendants.” Gore v. People’s Savings Bank, supra, 35 Conn. App. 128-29 n.4. Moreover, the Appellate Court did not independently analyze the plaintiffs’ claim that the trial court had improperly failed to instruct the jury on the theory of nuisance, because “the issue of public nuisance was thrust into the complaint only to the extent that proof of a public nuisance . . . could constitute negligence per se or strict liability.” Id.