Free Initial ConsultationCall 888-865-8430
 
HomeOur FirmAttorney ProfilesPractice AreasInformation CentersCases & VerdictsLatest Legal NewsLegal ResourcesSe Habla EspanolContact Us
KD&G
555 Long Wharf Drive
New Haven, CT 06511
Phone: 203-865-8430
Toll free: 888-865-8430
E-Mail the Firm

Super Lawyers
EmailSavePrint
Latest Legal News

News

[06/11] Man feels fine after being shot in head by nailgun
[06/06] Pa. crews rescue nude man stuck in portable potty
[06/24] Brain injuries cause half of seniors' fall deaths
[06/20] Study: Treating herpes doesn't prevent HIV
[06/05] Hispanics dying on job at higher rates than others

More...

Articles

Notify People Who May Be Responsible For Your Injuries

You don't have to know who was at fault for your accident; you must simply think about who might have been at fault. And in the beginning, you don't have to give the people involved, or their insurance companies, any detailed information about the accident or your injuries. All you have to do is notify them that there was an accident at a certain time and place, that you were injured, and that you intend to file a claim.

More...

Consumer Fraud Acts

If a merchant or a service provider has cheated you, typical legal claims may not actually address the problem. There are limits to the force of contract and common-law fraud claims. Neither, for example, addresses the situation when a seller makes a misrepresentation without knowing it was false. Many states, in response to this loophole, have enacted statutes creating causes of action for "consumer fraud."

More...

Case Summaries

[07/03] Crowley Marine Servs. Inc. v. Maritrans Inc.
In an action arising out of the collision of plaintiff's tug boat with defendants' oil tanker, a district court's reallocation of fault in the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in considering the coordinated nature of the tug escort, the tug boat's violations of Rules 5 and 17(b), or the negligence of both plaintiff and the tug's captain; and 2) it did not err in apportioning 70% of the responsibility for the collision to the tug boat.

[07/03] Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc.
In an action arising from an accident with fireworks, order granting defendant-fireworks manufacturer leave to amend and remand for a new trial on the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claim in addition to plaintiff husband's pendent consortium claim is reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not apply the good-cause standard in ruling on motion to amend; 2) and the district court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment; 3) and the error was not harmless as it significantly affected plaintiffs' claims.

[07/02] Anderson v. Commerce Construction Services, Inc.
In an action for negligence arising out of a Nebraska subcontractor's employee's injuries while performing demolition work in Kansas, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) Kansas courts would have applied the lex loci delicti choice of law rule whereby the state where the tort occurred governs the merits of the litigation; 2) Kansas courts have only applied section 185 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to cases dealing with subrogation; and 3) application of section 184's most significant relationship test would result in defendant prevailing.

[07/02] Allen v. Brown Clinic, P.L.L.P
In a medical malpractice suit, jury verdict for defendant-doctor is affirmed over claims that the district court erred when it denied his motion to exclude for cause: 1) all jurors who had ever received medical treatment at a particular clinic or with a particular doctor; 2) all jurors who had family members who had been treated at the clinic or by the doctor; and 3) two jurors who had relatives with connections to the defendants. A claim that the district court erred in denying a motion to exclude defendants' medical expert is also rejected.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

More...

Frequently Asked Questions

Is an owner of property liable for using deadly force to defend their property?

What remedies does a railroad worker, who is injured while working, have?

What is a slip and fall action?

Can anyone bring a wrongful death claim?

Learn More: Plaintiff's Personal Injury Law

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.