Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Citation
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Parent Document
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-01-30
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
Full Text
1,093 charsOn appeal, we concluded that the trial court had improperly directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the strict liability counts. In so concluding, we noted *223that a violation of §§ 47a-8 and 47a-54f constitutes negligence per se, and that, because these statutes do not contain a provision permitting an excuse for the violation, landlords are strictly liable for damages upon proof of violation of the statute and proximate causation.2 Gore v. People’s Savings Bank, supra, 35 Conn. App. 135-36. The Supreme Court agreed with our conclusion that the presence of lead paint in violation of §§ 47a-8 and 47a-54f constitutes negligence per se, but further stated that these sections do not impose strict liability on landlords. Gore v. People’s Savings Bank, supra, 235 Conn. 372. Rather, the Supreme Court concluded that because § § 47a-8 and 47a-54f do not modify the common law elements of landlord premises liability, notice is relevant to a tenant’s cause of action.3 Id. The Supreme Court therefore remanded the case to this court for consideration of the issues stated above. I