Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-17 (2026)
Duties as to accidents
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority shall examine the causes of, and the circumstances connected with, all fatal accidents occurring in the operation of the plant or equipment of any public service company or electric supplier, and such other accidents, whether resulting in personal injury or not, as, in its judgment, require investigation. The authority shall make a record of the causes, facts and circumstances of each accident, within three months thereafter, and as a part of such record shall suggest means, if possible, whereby similar accidents may be avoided in the future. Such record shall be open to public inspection at the office of the authority and a copy thereof shall be mailed to the public service company or electric supplier affected thereby. The authority may by written order extend the deadline for completion of its record in cases where it is not possible to conclude an investigation within the three-month period because of circumstances beyond its control.
(1949 Rev., S. 5407; 1971, P.A. 221; P.A. 75-486, S. 1, 69; P.A. 77-614, S. 162, 610; P.A. 80-482, S. 53, 348; P.A. 82-150, S. 3; P.A. 90-51, S. 1; P.A. 98-28, S. 88, 117; P.A. 11-80, S. 1.)
History: 1971 act required that record of accident be made within three months rather than one month; P.A. 75-486 replaced public utilities commission with public utilities control authority; P.A. 77-614 replaced the authority with division of public utility control within the department of business regulation, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-482 made division of public utility control an independent department and deleted reference to abolished department of business regulation; P.A. 82-150 made technical grammatical change; P.A. 90-51 added provision allowing department to extend deadline for completion of its record; P.A. 98-28 added electric suppliers and made a technical change, effective July 1, 1998; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Department of Public Utility Control” and “department” were changed editorially by the Revisors to “Public Utilities Regulatory Authority” and “authority”, respectively, effective July 1, 2011.
Cited. 162 C. 53.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Wiseman v. Armstrong, 989 A.2d 1027 (Conn. 2010).
Wiseman v. Armstrong, 989 A.2d 1027 (Conn. 2010). “[3] Practice Book § 16-32, regarding procedure in civil matters, provides: "Subject to the provisions of Section 16-17, after a verdict has been returned and before the jury has been discharged, the jury shall be polled at the request of any party or upon the judicial…”
Rendahl v. Peluso, 162 A.3d 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “See also Practice Book § 16-17. This statute ... does not limit the power of the trial court to return the jury to a second or third consideration, to cases in which the verdict is, in the opinion of the court, in favor of or against a wrong party.”
Comm'r of Pub. Saf. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 21 A.3d 737 (Conn. 2011). “, General Statutes § 7-410 (files and records of municipal civil service boards, including tests); General Statutes § 16-17 (public utility accident investigations).”
Micalizzi v. Stewart, 188 A.3d 159 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). “"[The Defendant's Counsel]: Pursuant to [Practice Book] § 16-32, poll after the jury verdict subject to the provisions of [Practice Book] § 16-17 after verdict has been returned and before the jury has been discharged, the jury-the jury shall be- "The Court: I- "[The Defendant's…”
Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 3 A.3d 892 (Conn. 2010). “17 Practice Book § 16-32 provides: “Subject to the provisions of Section 16-17, after a verdict has been returned and before the jury has been discharged, the jury shall be polled at the request of any party or upon the judicial authority’s own motion.”
Pickering v. Theresa Rankin-carle, 926 A.2d 1065 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). “” See also Practice Book § 16-17. “A decision with regard to an order for reconsideration rests within the court’s sound discretion.”
Hall v. Bergman, 943 A.2d 515 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). “See Practice Book § 16-17. 9 Stuart Cohn did not object to the additur.”
Arnold v. Moriarty, 60 A.3d 317 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). “[direct] the jury, with appropriate instructions, to retire and reconsider the verdict”); see also Practice Book § 16-17. 5 After returning to the deliberation room, the jury sent a note indicating it did not intend to award the plaintiff any damages and inquiring whether it…”
Maag v. Homechek Real Est. Servs., Inc., 843 A.2d 619 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). “” Practice Book § 16-17 mirrors that rule. A decision with regard to an order for reconsideration rests within the court’s sound discretion.”
R.I. Pools, Inc. v. Paramount Concrete, Inc., 89 A.3d 993 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). “10 “Subject to the provisions of Section 16-17, the judicial authority shall, if the verdict is in order and is technically correct, accept it without comment.”
Szczycinska v. Acampora, 10 A.3d 531 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). “Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-223, “[t]he court may, if it judges the jury has mistaken the evidence in the action and has brought in a verdict contrary to the evidence, or has brought in a verdict contrary to the direction of the court in a matter of law, return them to a…”
Graham v. Comm'r of Transp., 260 A.3d 1275 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). “See also Practice Book § 16-17. . . . ‘‘A trial court may decline to accept a verdict and return the jury to continue its deliberations when the verdict form or accompanying interrogatories, if any: are legally inconsistent; e.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.