Page 4 - CLT102620

4 ¦ OCTOBER 26, 2020 NEWS

¦ From 3 CASES on PAGE 1 vis addressed Davis’ claim about
according to a synopsis of the Su- his attorney’s alleged conflict of
preme Court’s description of the interest.
case. Davis raised the alleged conflict
TMP argued that Viking could at his sentencing, when he claimed
only recover more than the his attorney was also representing
amount due under the contract if The Connecticut Supreme the victim’s son in an unrelated
the plaintiff had terminated the Court will hear oral matter.
contract. Both parties agreed that
Viking hadn’t done this. arguments in 13 cases next The synopsis said the trial court
month. They run the gamut didn’t inquire further, and Davis
The trial court denied a motion from criminal and civil to appealed. Davis claimed the trial
to set aside the verdict, finding “a worker’s safety and breach court should have asked him dur-
reasonable jury could have award- ing the hearing about that alleged
of contract.

ed the cost to repair damages conflict, even though Davis didn’t
under various sections of the con- raised the topic himself.
tract,” according to the Supreme
Court synopsis.
The synopsis also said the trial Gonzalez v. O&G Industries
In this tort negligence claim,
court relied on several sections the plaintiffs claim the court
of the contract, including the “remedies” portion, should have held O&G Industries Inc. liable for in-
which said that in addition to retaining the amounts juries sustained while plaintiffs were working on a
due, Viking “may sue the defendant and recover power plant construction site. The worksite was the
damages.” source of an explosion in 2010 that killed six people
TMP challenged this before the Connecticut Ap- and injured more than 50 in Middletown.
pellate Court, and the Supreme Court took over the Elvira Gonzalez and other plaintiffs said they were
case. injured while clearing debris from pipelines using
The Supreme Court will look into whether, as highly pressurized natural gas in a process called
TMP claimed, the trial court erred because Viking “gas blow.”
hadn’t based the breach-of-contract claim on the The trial court, however, said gas blow posed a
sections that the court relied on in denying the mo- low risk of injury when performed correctly and
tion to set aside the jury verdict. with due care. The same trial court granted sum-
mary judgment to the defendants. The court further
found nothing in the record “would support a con-
State v. Davis
The crux of the issue in State v. Davis is whether clusion that anything the defendants did, or did not
Brock Davis, who was found guilty of murder in a do, was a substantial contributing factor in causing
stabbing case, had fair representation. the explosion,” according to the high court’s synop-
At a pretrial hearing, Davis told the trial court he sis of the case.
no longer wanted his court-appointed attorney to The plaintiffs, however, maintained the gas blow
represent him. Among other things, Davis said his was inherently dangerous, and the defendants should
attorney allegedly failed to provide him with cer- be held negligent for allegedly not taking preventa-
tain discovery materials, tried to convince him to tive measures prior to the work being done.
accept the state’s plea deal, and suggested he was ¦

guilty. Davis also said the attorney had a conflict Robert Storace covers legal trends, lawsuits and
of interest. analysis for the Connecticut Law Tribune. Follow
According to the court’s synopsis of the case, him on Twitter @RobertSCTLaw or reach him at
during a later hearing, neither the court nor Da- 203-437-5950.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune