Dubreuil v. Witt, No. 17143.
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 271 Conn. 782,860 A.2d 698 |
| Parties | Alphonse T. DUBREUIL et al. v. Otto P. WITT et al. |
| Decision Date | 23 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 17143. |
860 A.2d 698
271 Conn. 782
v.
Otto P. WITT et al
No. 17143.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued October 19, 2004.
Officially released November 23, 2004.
Otto P. Witt, pro se, the appellant (named defendant).
Joseph X. Du Mond, Hartford, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
PER CURIAM.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether, in this legal malpractice action tried to the court, the trial court's knowledge of the standard of care and of what constitutes a breach of that standard obviated the plaintiff's burden to present expert testimony regarding the defendant's breach of the standard of care. The named defendant, Otto P. Witt,1 appeals, following our grant of certification,2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs, Alphonse T. Dubreuil and Marilyn B. Dubreuil,3 rendered after a trial to the court. The defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that expert testimony was unnecessary to establish that he had violated the standard of care. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The plaintiffs brought this legal malpractice action in two counts against the defendant. The first count alleged that the defendant's failure to appear at court proceedings on three separate occasions while representing the plaintiffs in a collection action brought by Deedy Construction Company constituted negligence on the part of the defendant and resulted in a judgment against the plaintiffs in the
Following a trial to the court in April, 1998, the trial court, Hon. D. Michael Hurley, judge trial referee, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs without hearing expert testimony regarding whether the defendant had breached the standard of care because the court determined that it did not need such testimony to make its ruling. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion by limiting his cross-examination of Alphonse T. Dubreuil, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Barber, No. 455605 (CT 5/20/2005), No. 455605
...to establish the standard of proper professional skill or care"; Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 420, 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A.2d 698 (2004); "[t]here is an exception to this rule . . . where there is such an obvious and gross want of care and skill that the negl......
-
Grimm v. Fox, No. 18814.
...that standard to establish that element of his claim. Relying on Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 421–22, 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A.2d 698 (2004), in which the Appellate Court indicated that “there may be no expert who knows more about the practice of law before th......
-
Stohlts v. Gilkinson, No. 24618.
...to the issues raised therein." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 425, 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A.2d 698 Although the plaintiffs did claim that they were harassed by the defendants, they did not allege in their amended complaint tha......
-
Ackerly and Brown, Llp v. Smithies, No. 28346.
...rules of practice eliminates the need for expert testimony. Cf. Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 421-22, 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A.2d 698 (2004). Instead, the court properly concluded that the general rule requiring expert testimony in a legal malpractice action ap......