Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)

Citation: Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
Parent Document: Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1994-07-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7907053/gore-v-peoples-savings-bank/ ↗

Full Text

810 chars

The plaintiffs assert that the trial court improperly directed a verdict as to the counts sounding in strict liability. “ ‘The standard of review of directed verdicts is well settled. A directed verdict is justified if on the evidence the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached any other conclusion. Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243, 244, 510 A.2d 1337 (1986); Golembeski v. Metichewan Grange No. 190, 20 Conn. App. 699, 701, 569 A.2d 1157 (1990).’ Merola v. Burns, 21 Conn. App. 633, 636, 575 A.2d 1025 (1990). In reviewing the trial court’s action in directing a verdict for [the defendants], we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[s]. Petyan v. Ellis, supra [244]; *130Merola v. Burns, supra [636].” Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786, 819-20, 614 A.2d 414 (1992).

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text