The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Tort Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

by Mazur, Catherine


SC19248 - Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. VitalWorks, Inc. ("In this certified appeal, the plaintiff, Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C., claims that the Appellate Court improperly reversed the judgment of the trial court, which found that the defendants, VitalWorks, Inc. (VitalWorks), and Cerner Physician Associates, Inc. (Cerner), had violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes ยง 42-110a et seq., by making misrepresentations in connection with the sale of certain practice management and electronic medical records software to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that, under applicable choice of law principles, the law of New Mexico, rather than CUTPA, governs the plaintiff's unfair trade practices claim. We conclude that the Appellate Court correctly determined that that claim is governed by New Mexico law. Contrary to the determination of the Appellate Court, however, we conclude that the case must be remanded for a new trial so that New Mexico law can be applied to the plaintiff's unfair trade practices claim.)

AC37516 - Porto v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. ("Traditionally, in a premises liability case, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazard that injured her. Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 140, 811 A.2d 687 (2002). Our Supreme Court adopted a narrow exception to that notice requirement in Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768, 770, 918 A.2d 249 (2007), where in it held that a supermarket that operated a self-service salad bar was liable for slips and falls suffered by patrons near the service area because the store's self-service mode of operation created an inherently foreseeable hazard. In the present case, the plaintiff, Katerina Porto, seeks to extend that holding to pet stores that allow leashed animals inside its stores, arguing that their 'pet-friendly mode of operation' caused her to slip and fall in dog urine while a customer at the store of the defendant, Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. The trial court held that the mode of operation rule did not apply under those facts and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. We agree, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")