Contracts · MBE-tested
Nancy Champagne v. Henry A. Deming, Jr., et al.
162 Conn. 609·Connecticut Supreme Court·1971·CT
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Nancy Champagne v. Henry A. Deming, Jr., et al.
House, C. J., Thim, Ryan, Shapiro andd Loiselle, Js.
Argued December 10
decided December 10, 1971
John F. Murphy, Jr., for the appellants (defendants).
Waldemar J. Lach, with whom was Vincent J. Trantolo, for the appellee (plaintiff).
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The court’s charge on the special defense of the assumption of risk in effect removed that defense from the consideration of the jury. The charge was further prejudicial in that the jury were instructed that the failure of one of the defendants to testify “permits a strong inference that he could not vindicate his cause by his testimony.”
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to grant the motion to set the verdict aside.