Section 47a-7
- Citation
- Section 47a-7
- Parent Document
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-11-07
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Bourke v. Stamford Hospital, 696 A.2d 1072 (1996)
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
- Section 47a-7
Full Text
660 charsshould be construed as contemplating the recovery of general compensatory damages, because such a double recovery ordinarily contemplates punishment and deterrence, as well as compensation. The law is well established that a statute that “requires the person at fault to pay to the injured party a greater sum than that which measures the injury sustained, though not strictly penal, it so far partakes of the nature of a penal statute that it should be construed with reasonable strictness in determining whether the act complained of comes within the description in the statute of the acts for which the person in fault is made liable.” Dubreuil v. Waterman,