History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner


 

 

 

 

 

   

3.6-7  Duty - Foreseeability

Revised to January 1, 2008

A duty to use care exists when a reasonable person, knowing what the defendant here either knew or should have known at the time of the challenged conduct, would foresee that harm of the same general nature as that which occurred here was likely to result from that conduct.  If harm of the same general nature as that which occurred here was foreseeable, it does not matter if the manner in which the harm that actually occurred was unusual, bizarre or unforeseeable.

Authority

Coburn v. Lenox Homes, Inc., 186 Conn. 370, 375 (1982); Pisel v. Stamford Hospital, 180 Conn. 314, 332-33 (1980); Orlo v. Connecticut Co., 128 Conn. 231, 237 (1941).
 


 

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | Educational Resources | E-Services | Español | FAQ's | Juror Information | Media | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Words | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies and Disclaimers

Copyright © 2011, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch