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

1,013 chars

In assessing whether the violation of § 47a-8 or § 47a-54f can provide for civil liability pursuant to a negligence per se theory, we must determine whether the legislature, in adopting the statute, anticipated the plaintiff to be a member of the protected class and intended to prevent the harm that resulted. “To determine the collectively expressed legislative intent, we look first to the language of the statute itself. If that language is plain and unambiguous, we go no further. University of Connecticut v. Freedom, of Information Commission, 217 Conn. 322, 328, 585 A.2d 690 (1991). If, however, the statute is ambiguous, e.g., either opaque or susceptible to alternative conflicting interpretations, we will seek guidance from ‘extrinsic aids,’ e.g., the legislative history. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Della Ghelfa, 200 Conn. 630, 637-38, 513 A.2d 52 (1986); State v. Ellis, 197 Conn. 436, 445, 497 A.2d 974 (1985).” *133Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 187, 592 A.2d 912 (1991).

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text