A party to a civil action or probate proceeding: (1) May compel any adverse party, any person for whose benefit the action or proceeding is instituted, prosecuted or defended, or any officer, director, managing agent, or other agent or employee having knowledge of facts relevant to the action or proceeding, of a public or private corporation, partnership or association which is an adverse party or for whose benefit the action or proceeding is instituted, prosecuted or defended, to testify as a witness in his behalf, in the same manner and subject to the same rules as other witnesses; (2) may take the deposition of such party or person in the same manner and subject to the same rules as those pertaining to the taking of other depositions; and, (3) in either case, may examine such party to the same extent as an adverse witness.
(1949 Rev., S. 7901; March, 1958, P.A. 27, S. 64; 1959, P.A. 444; 1961, P.A. 177; P.A. 73-209; P.A. 82-160, S. 82.)
History: 1959 act provided party may be examined to same extent as adverse witness; 1961 act extended application to officers, etc. of corporations, partnerships or associations and provided for taking depositions; P.A. 73-209 allowed party to compel agents or employees “having knowledge of facts relevant to the action or proceeding” to testify; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subdiv. indicators.
Authorizes a party to require his adversary to give a deposition. 30 C. 358. Cited. 76 C. 116. Court can compel party to produce document in his hands in court. Id., 479. Defaulted defendant could be called as witness by plaintiffs in proceeding against other defendants, although he could not disclaim his own liability. 149 C. 459. Plaintiff may introduce in evidence defendant's motor vehicle accident report to show inconsistencies between testimony of defendant as a witness for plaintiff and statements in the report; since defendant had identified the report as his own, the fact that someone else may actually have filled in the body of the report did not make it inadmissible. 150 C. 349. Testimony re matters not brought to issue by the pleadings inadmissible on plaintiff's examination. 151 C. 193. Counsel for party called as witness under statute can ask leading questions on his cross-examination. Id., 402. After plaintiff's statutory direct examination, cross-examination of defendant must deal only with matters covered on direct examination. 154 C. 129, 154. Defendant called as a witness by plaintiff testified he did not know the passengers in his own car; fact for jury whether potential witnesses were known to defendant. Id., 212. Cited. 158 C. 165; 171 C. 35; 200 C. 9; 211 C. 555; 232 C. 632.
Cited. 14 CA 178.
History discussed; act as amended merely broadens definition of “adverse party” to include specified personnel of corporations, partnerships or associations; the taking of depositions is still restricted by Secs. 52-148, 52-149 and 52-152. 23 CS 249. Cited. 26 CS 338.
In motion to open judgment, mover must show how alleged erroneous ruling was prejudicial to him. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 110. Defendant's failure to produce witnesses, relying on insufficiency of plaintiff's case, does not permit inference that witness' testimony would have been favorable to plaintiff. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 649.
Notes of Decisions
McMahon v. City of Middletown, 186 A.3d 58 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 12× “We decline to review this unpreserved claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
State v. Graham, 509 A.2d 493 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-178 grants parties to civil proceedings the power to examine opposing parties “to the same extent as an adverse witness.”
Patterson v. Szabo Food Serv. of New York, Inc., 540 A.2d 99 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiffs claim on appeal that the trial court erred (1) in charging the jury that it might find that the defendant was not negligent if it found that the plaintiff would not have fallen, had he heeded the defendant’s warning signs, and (2) in sustaining the defendant’s…”
MacIejewska v. Lombard Bros., Inc., 368 A.2d 206 (Conn. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to § 52-178 of the General Statutes, which permits a party to compel other parties or their employees to testify, the plaintiffs called Francis Lombard, an officer of the defendant corporation, as an adverse witness.”
Grievance Comm. v. Dacey, 222 A.2d 339 (Conn. 1966).
· cites it 2× “Since Dacey was a party adverse to the plaintiff, he came within the provisions of General Statutes § 52-178, as construed in Mendez v.”
Hines v. Saint Vincent's Med. Ctr., 657 A.2d 578 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “2d 493 (1986) (“[w]e are persuaded by the weight of authority that there is no longer justification for the common law rule prohibiting a party from impeaching his own witness”); see General Statutes § 52-178; see also C. Tait & J.”
Patrowicz v. Peloquin, 209 A.3d 1233 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 4× “" The defendant renews that novel contention in this appeal, claiming that General Statutes § 52-178 "mandate[s] that a trial court must allow [the defendant] to take the vital testimony of the plaintiff [Deborah]" without a subpoena.”
Mendez v. Dorman, 195 A.2d 561 (Conn. 1963).
· cites it 2× “The sole assignment of error attacks a ruling on evidence, which in turn calls in question the proper interpretation and application of § 52-178 of the General Statutes, as amended in 1959 and 1961.”
Martyn v. Donlin, 198 A.2d 700 (Conn. 1964).
“Since Donlin was an adverse party, the plaintiff, under § 52-178 of the General Statutes, was entitled to a statutory examination which would permit the use of leading questions “which, .”
Fasanelli v. Terzo, 189 A.2d 500 (Conn. 1963).
· cites it 2× “He had been called by the plaintiff under § 52-178 of the General Statutes, which permits a litigant not only to use his adversary as a witness but, under a 1959 amendment, to examine him as an adverse witness.”
Culetsu v. Dix, 181 A.2d 116 (Conn. 1962).
“§ 52-178. The defendants also claim error in the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict.”
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.