Page 31 - CLT041221

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS APRIL 12, 2021 ¦ 31

were timely delivered to the deliberation room returned unclaimed. Plaintiff made no other
but plaintiff ’s exhibits were not. He argued that attempts to reach defendant in other ways. In-
this constituted evidentiary impropriety. Ten stead, two years passed before defendant was
minutes after receiving plaintiff ’s exhibits, the aware of the suit. The court dismissed the
jury returned its verdict. The trial court denied Dram Shop Act claim.
plaintiff ’s motion and found for defendants.
Plaintiff appealed and the court affirmed. Plain-
tiff first argued that the trial court erred in re- CIVIL PROCEDURE •
fusing to set aside the verdict on the ground that MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

the court failed to ensure the jury had plaintiff ’s Dental Patient Loses Malpractice Case
exhibits when they started deliberating. The by Failing to Provide Written Opinion
court reasoned plaintiff presented no evidence Letter
that the jury began deliberating prior to receiv-
ing plaintiff ’s exhibits, the jury had a fair op-
portunity to deliberate with all of the exhibits, CASE: Correa v. MCM Dental, P.C.
and it was undisputed that the jury had all the COURT: New Haven J.D. at Meriden
exhibits before returning the verdict. The court DOC. NO.: CV-20-6021566
said that just because the jury only deliberated COURT OPINION BY: Sizemore
for a short time after getting plaintiff ’s exhibits DATE: March 23, 2021 • PAGES: 6
may have just attested to the weakness of plain-
tiff ’s case. The court also determined that plain- A dentist office, who was being sued for negli-
tiff waived his unpreserved claim that the trial gence, successfully showed the court lacked ju-
court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict risdiction because the plaintiff failed to attach
due to jury misconduct. The court held that the a copy of an opinion letter. The plaintiff, Ash-
record indicated plaintiff did not bring the late ley Correa, brought suit against MCM Dental
delivery of his exhibits to the court’s attention alleging MCM was negligent in a surgical root
prior to the reading of the verdict. canal procedure, where MCM failed to remove
cotton placed inside her tooth which was later
discovered by a second dentist. MCM moved to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to General Stat-
SUPERIOR COURT ute Section 52-190a, and the court agreed, rul-
ing that it lacked jurisdiction because the com-
plaint did not include a written opinion letter
CIVIL PROCEDURE from a similar health care provider.

Dram Shop Act Claim Dismissed for CIVIL PROCEDURE • PERSONAL INJURY

Failure to Provide Written Notice Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Granted for Lack of Jurisdiction
CASE: Knibbs v. Plan B Burger, LLC.
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6104497
COURT OPINION BY: Budzik CASE: Medina v. Haun
COURT: Tolland J.D. at Rockville
DATE: March 16, 2021 • PAGES: 5 DOC. NO.: CV-20-6021145
Plaintiff was severely injured in a car accident; COURT OPINION BY: Sicilian
the other driver was driving while intoxicated. DATE: March 24, 2021 • PAGES: 7
The intoxication was primarily a result from Plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident that she
being excessively served at a bar. Plaintiff alleged was caused by negligent operation of a
brought suit, alleging violation of the Con- fuel tanker by defendant; plaintiff brought suit
necticut Dram Shop Act. Defendants moved to against Haun and Tankstar. Defendants moved
dismiss, arguing that they had never received to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over
written notice of the suit within 120 days as re- them. Haun is not a Connecticut resident and
quired by statute. Plaintiff argued that she did claims he was never served with process by
provide written notice, but that she had used plaintiff, as required by statute. Tankstar is a
the address listed in the Connecticut Liquor foreign corporation and argued that it did not
Control Commission records. Defendant had own the tanker that Haun was operating. The
not kept a current address. Those notices were court maintained that plaintiff failed to satisfy

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune