In the recent Connecticut Superior Court case of Batchelder v. Kolesko, a defendant filed an “Offer of Compromise” in an attempt to settle the case. The Connecticut “Offer of Compromise” statute gives the recipient thirty (30) days to respond. The plaintiff asked the court for an extension of time to respond. The court denied that request and held that, “the offers of compromise provisions facilitate resolution of civil cases…early settlements unclog court dockets and save participants time, money and uncertainty.”
It is vitally important to understand the time deadlines associated with the filing of Offers of Compromise in automobile and truck crash cases, as you may lose important rights if you do not respond in a timely fashion. If you are uncertain, you should consult with an experienced Automobile Accident Lawyer. Call 860-246-2700 today.
In a recent Connecticut Superior Court case, Judge Alfred J. Jennings rejected a plaintiff’s request for permission to seek the defendant’s cell phone records for the one hour prior to a “relatively high speed rear end collision”.
Connecticut rules of practice only allow for a standard set of discovery (a request for information) in automobile crash cases. Cell phone records are not included in the standard set of discovery. The plaintiff in the case of Girardi v. Kreutter sought permission to obtain the defendant’s cell phone records. The court denied the plaintiff’s request and held that the plaintiff failed to prove there was sufficient grounds to support the request for the cell phone records.
The court did not say that it would be impossible to obtain cell phone records in any automobile crash case and left open the possibility that plaintiffs in other cases could obtain those records if it could provide an adequate reason for their production. With the increased use of cell phones and text messaging devices, it is highly likely that cell phone records will provide relevant information in automobile and trucking crash cases.
Contact Timothy O’Keefe today at 860-246-2700.
On April 18, 2012, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could have an important impact on the ability of a person who is injured (or killed) by a drunk driver in Connecticut to recover adequate financial compensation for the harm caused. At issue is whether a plaintiff in such a case needs to provide trial evidence of “visible intoxication” on the part of the drunk driver in order to recover financial compensation from the bar or tavern that served the intoxicated person.
At the jury trial of the case, the trial court instructed the jury that it did not need to find such evidence to return a verdict for the plaintiff. Upon receiving that instruction, the jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict and awarded damages. The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed that decision. The Connecticut Supreme Court will now decide the issue and make a determination if the plaintiff will recover damages.
If you would like to consult with an experienced Dram Shop Liability Lawyer in Connecticut, please use the Free Case Evaluation Form on the right sidebar, or contact Attorney Timothy L. O’Keefe at email@example.com.
CTAutoInjuryLawyer.com, a new website launched in early 2011, is a new resource for people who have been injured by the negligent operation of an automobile or tractor-trailer truck.
The site will provide useful information to those people who have experienced an automobile or trucking related injury, and provide some guidance about what steps to take in gathering information, and how to get help with an automobile or trucking claim. Provided by experienced lawyers, this resource will also describe an injury victim’s rights under the law and how to recover legal compensation for these types of injuries.
For more information about how to assist those who have suffered serious automobile or trucking related injuries, fill out the form at the right of this page or call the number above.