O'Connor v. O'Connor
| Decision Date | 14 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 3290,3290 |
| Citation | 4 Conn.App. 19,492 A.2d 207 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Roseann O'CONNOR v. Brian O'CONNOR. |
John J. Houlihan, Jr., Hartford, with whom, on the brief, were William R. Davis, Bloomfield, and Anthony C. Polvino, law student intern, for appellant (plaintiff).
James O. Shea, Branford, with whom, on the brief, was Roger Brewer, Orange, for appellee (defendant).
Before DUPONT, C.P.J., and HULL and BORDEN, JJ.
This is an action for damages resulting from injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a one car accident, which occurred in East St. Amstead, Quebec, Canada. She alleges that she sustained various injuries as a result of the accident, all of which were caused by the defendant's negligent operation of the motor vehicle. The defendant filed a motion to strike, claiming that Quebec law applied to the present action and under that law the plaintiff had no cause of action. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to strike and rendered judgment for the defendant after the plaintiff declined to file a new pleading. The plaintiff, on appeal, urges us to "overrule" Gibson v. Fullin, 172 Conn. 407, 374 A.2d 1061 (1977), despite our status as an intermediate appellate court.
The law in Connecticut is clear that in motor vehicle cases Gibson v. Fullin, supra, 172 Conn. 411, 374 A.2d 1061. In the face of this uniform and recent Supreme Court precedent, whether the traditional rule of lex loci delicti should be reevaluated and possibly discarded in appropriate circumstances is not for this court to decide.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Connor v. O'Connor
...loci doctrine. Accordingly, the Appellate Court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. O'Connor v. O'Connor, 4 Conn.App. 19, 20, 492 A.2d 207, cert. granted, 196 Conn. 812, 495 A.2d 280 On appeal to this court, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in ......
-
State v. Thurman
...has adhered to the premise that such claim is reviewable under the plain error doctrine. As we recognized in O'Connor v. O'Connor, 4 Conn.App. 19, 20, 492 A.2d 207 (1985), this court will not reexamine or reevaluate Supreme Court precedent. Whether or not the holding of State v. Burke, supr......
-
Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Bridgeport
...9 Conn.App. 199, 203-204, 518 A.2d 394 (1986), cert. denied, 202 Conn. 802, 519 A.2d 1206 (1987) (same); see also O'Connor v. O'Connor, 4 Conn.App. 19, 20, 492 A.2d 207 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13 (1986) (same). This principle is inherent in a hierarchical jud......
-
State v. Summerville
...such evidence. Id., 486, 522 A.2d 249. It is not our function to overrule established Supreme Court precedent. O'Connor v. O'Connor, 4 Conn.App. 19, 20, 492 A.2d 207 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13 The defendant's third claim is that the trial court erred in rulin......