recognized exceptions rule in Connecticut

1954This rule, however, is subject to certain exceptions and one of them is expressly recognized in the Bogoratt ease, supra, in the following language: “The situation could not reasonably be held to fall within any of the recognized exceptions to this rule, including that which holds that where the work done and turned over by the contractor is so negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons whom he knew, or ought to know, would use it, he remains liable, even after the completion of his work and its acceptance by the contractee, to third parties injured as the result of h

1932The situation could not reasonably be held to fall within any of the recognized exceptions to this rule, including that which holds that where the work done and turned over by the contractor is so1 negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons whom he knew, or ought to know, would use it, he remains liable, even after the completion of his work and its acceptance by the contraetee, to third parties injured as the result of his negligence if he knew, or, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, should have known the dangerous condition by him created, and the co

2001Those exceptions are summarized by the Supreme Court in Burnham v. Administrator, supra at 332 as follows: "The standard for review of administrative proceedings similarly must allow for judicial scrutiny of claims such as constitutional error; [citations omitted]; jurisdictional error; [citations omitted]; or errors in the construction of an administrative agency's authorizing statute.

1995Rowan v. United States Post Office, 397 U.S. 728 , 735-37 , 90 S.Ct. 1484 , 25 L.Ed.2d 746 (1990), citing Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967).

1995Rowan v. United States Post Office, 397 U.S. 728 , 735-37 , 90 S.Ct. 1484 , 25 L.Ed.2d 746 (1990), citing Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967).

1995Rowan v. United States Post Office, 397 U.S. 728 , 735-37 , 90 S.Ct. 1484 , 25 L.Ed.2d 746 (1990), citing Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967).

1995Rowan v. United States Post Office, 397 U.S. 728 , 735-37 , 90 S.Ct. 1484 , 25 L.Ed.2d 746 (1990), citing Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967).

1954This rule, however, is subject to certain exceptions and one of them is expressly recognized in the Bogoratt ease, supra, in the following language: “The situation could not reasonably be held to fall within any of the recognized exceptions to this rule, including that which holds that where the work done and turned over by the contractor is so negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons whom he knew, or ought to know, would use it, he remains liable, even after the completion of his work and its acceptance by the contractee, to third parties injured as the result of h

1954This rule, however, is subject to certain exceptions and one of them is expressly recognized in the Bogoratt ease, supra, in the following language: “The situation could not reasonably be held to fall within any of the recognized exceptions to this rule, including that which holds that where the work done and turned over by the contractor is so negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons whom he knew, or ought to know, would use it, he remains liable, even after the completion of his work and its acceptance by the contractee, to third parties injured as the result of h

1912Turgeon v. Wood ward, 83 Conn. 537, 544 , 78 Atl. 577 . *171 The defendant urges that these declarations are within the exception under the authority of Sears v. Hayt, 37 Conn. 406, 407 , and Comins v. Comins, 21 Conn. 413, 418 , where declarations accompanying acts are held admissible as explaining their character, or characterized or qualified by them.

1912Turgeon v. Wood ward, 83 Conn. 537, 544 , 78 Atl. 577 . *171 The defendant urges that these declarations are within the exception under the authority of Sears v. Hayt, 37 Conn. 406, 407 , and Comins v. Comins, 21 Conn. 413, 418 , where declarations accompanying acts are held admissible as explaining their character, or characterized or qualified by them.

1912Turgeon v. Wood ward, 83 Conn. 537, 544 , 78 Atl. 577 . *171 The defendant urges that these declarations are within the exception under the authority of Sears v. Hayt, 37 Conn. 406, 407 , and Comins v. Comins, 21 Conn. 413, 418 , where declarations accompanying acts are held admissible as explaining their character, or characterized or qualified by them.

1912Turgeon v. Wood ward, 83 Conn. 537, 544 , 78 Atl. 577 . *171 The defendant urges that these declarations are within the exception under the authority of Sears v. Hayt, 37 Conn. 406, 407 , and Comins v. Comins, 21 Conn. 413, 418 , where declarations accompanying acts are held admissible as explaining their character, or characterized or qualified by them.

1904Although it must be confessed that the assumptions involved in the opinion give some countenance to the claim of the residuary legatee, the circumstances under which they were made were not such as to now entitle them to the controlling weight which ought to be given to a carefully considered and deliberate utterance, especially in view of the later expression in Bancroft v. Security Co., 74 Conn. 218 , and the cogent reasons in favor of the position outlined in the New York opinion quoted.