Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sowell v. Hyatt Corp.green2 sentences2002See Mitchell v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 536 So. 2d 934 (Ala. 1988): “Here, the plaintiffs’ alleged reaction to the foreign object in a vanilla wafer, which they saw in time to avoid physical injury, goes beyond the average person’s reaction.” Id., 936 ; Sowell v. Hyatt Corp., 623 A.2d 1221, 1225 (D.C. 2002See Mitchell v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 536 So. 2d 934 (Ala. 1988): “Here, the plaintiffs’ alleged reaction to the foreign object in a vanilla wafer, which they saw in time to avoid physical injury, goes beyond the average person’s reaction.” Id., 936 ; Sowell v. Hyatt Corp., 623 A.2d 1221, 1225 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2002See Mitchell v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 536 So. 2d 934 (Ala. 1988): “Here, the plaintiffs’ alleged reaction to the foreign object in a vanilla wafer, which they saw in time to avoid physical injury, goes beyond the average person’s reaction.” Id., 936 ; Sowell v. Hyatt Corp., 623 A.2d 1221, 1225 (D.C. 2002See Mitchell v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 536 So. 2d 934 (Ala. 1988): “Here, the plaintiffs’ alleged reaction to the foreign object in a vanilla wafer, which they saw in time to avoid physical injury, goes beyond the average person’s reaction.” Id., 936 ; Sowell v. Hyatt Corp., 623 A.2d 1221, 1225 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Faya v. Almarazgreen2 sentences1995Because we conclude that, applying the Montinieri standard, the defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment, we need not reach the issue of whether the Montinieri standard, the actual exposure test, or some other formulation; see, e.g., Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435 , 620 A.2d 327 (1993) (fear must be reasonable, but actual exposure not required); is the proper test for a case such as this. 1995Because we conclude that, applying the Montinieri standard, the defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment, we need not reach the issue of whether the Montinieri standard, the actual exposure test, or some other formulation; see, e.g., Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435 , 620 A.2d 327 (1993) (fear must be reasonable, but actual exposure not required); is the proper test for a case such as this. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barrett v. Danbury Hospital
green
2 sentences2008Accordingly, the foreseeability test encapsulated in the Montinieri test essentially requires “that the fear or distress experienced by the plaintiffs be reasonable in light of the conduct of the defendants. . . . [I]f the fear were unreasonable in light of the defendants’ conduct, the defendants would not have recognized that their conduct could cause this distress and, therefore, they would not be liable.” Barrett v. Danbury Hospital, 232 Conn. 242, 261-62 , 654 A.2d 748 (1995). 2008Accordingly, the foreseeability test encapsulated in the Montinieri test essentially requires “that the fear or distress experienced by the plaintiffs be reasonable in light of the conduct of the defendants. . . . [I]f the fear were unreasonable in light of the defendants’ conduct, the defendants would not have recognized that their conduct could cause this distress and, therefore, they would not be liable.” Barrett v. Danbury Hospital, 232 Conn. 242, 261-62 , 654 A.2d 748 (1995). | 2 | 2003–2008 |
State v. Carlson
neutral
2 sentences2000With these specific allegations in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that "the facts alleged in the plaintiffs complaint do indeed satisfy the Montinieri test." Crumb v. Waterbury Hospital Health Center , supra, 45 Conn. Sup. 461 ; see also Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 308 . 2000With these specific allegations in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that "the facts alleged in the plaintiffs complaint do indeed satisfy the Montinieri test." Crumb v. Waterbury Hospital Health Center , supra, 45 Conn. Sup. 461 ; see also Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 308 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone, Co.
green
2 sentences1999In Barrett the court stated: Because we conclude that applying the Montinieri standard [ Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Company, 175 Conn. 337 (1978)] the defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment, we need not reach the issue of whether the Montinieri standard, the actual exposure test or some other formulation e.g. [citation omitted] (fear must be reasonable but actual exposure not required); is the proper CT Page 14520 test for a case such as this. 1999In Barrett the court stated: Because we conclude that applying the Montinieri standard [ Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Company, 175 Conn. 337 (1978)] the defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment, we need not reach the issue of whether the Montinieri standard, the actual exposure test or some other formulation e.g. [citation omitted] (fear must be reasonable but actual exposure not required); is the proper CT Page 14520 test for a case such as this. | 1 | 1999–1999 |