Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
In a case that began nearly a decade ago, a federal appellate court recently rejected a New Haven man’s appeal of a $1 verdict. The nominal verdict was awarded in the man’s civil suit, during which he claimed the use of excessive force by police officers from Hamden and New Haven in the course of his 2006 arrest for assault.
According to reports, police were called to the man’s house, and when he refused to answer questions, a warrant was obtained for his arrest. When police attempted to arrest him, the man tried to flee in his car. Police stopped the vehicle and removed the man, who reportedly swung at officers and tried to run. The man grabbed a tree branch, swinging it like a baseball bat, trying to fend off police. In the end, four officers subdued and arrested him.
Legal Process
Although the charges against the man from that particular arrest were dropped, the arrest was a violation of an earlier probation, leading to six and a half years in prison. The man sued the arresting officers, claiming excessive force and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He began the process with the help of a pro bono attorney, but by the beginning of the trial he represented himself. Based on the evidence presented, the jury found that one of the officers did, in fact, assault the man but only awarded nominal damages in the amount of $1.
While forecasts for this year’s winter indicate that weather will be significantly milder than the last several years, the ice and snow will eventually reach the East Coast. It would not be winter in Connecticut without at least a few squalls and a snowstorm or two. When the snow does fly, driving conditions can deteriorate quickly, with slush and slippery roads contributing to thousands of motor vehicle accidents every year. Liability for a weather-related car accident can often be difficult to establish clearly, but in certain situations the State provides some fairly specific guidance.
Scrape the Ice and Brush the Snow
For many people, the morning routine especially during the winter generally includes going out and starting the car a few minutes before it is actually time to leave. Those fortunate enough to have remote starters can do so without even setting foot outside. Others find themselves rushing out the door with no time to spare, taking just a few seconds to scrape enough of the ice and snow away so they can see enough to drive. According to the law, just enough is not enough and such drivers can face fines and liability for damages caused by this negligence.
The winter holidays are a time for getting together with family, friends, and loved ones. For many, Christmas and New Year’s celebrations involve alcohol, which, combined with the travel that is often necessary, can create serious dangers on area roadways.
According to estimates from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, drunk-driving related fatalities increase by nearly 25 percent during the Christmas holiday period. An average of 45 deaths involving alcohol-impaired drivers occur every day between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Day, with many thousands more injured. While we certainly encourage you to enjoy the holidays this year, we would like to remind you to make arrangements as needed so that you can avoid the dangers of drunk driving.
Choose a Designated Driver or Be One
Awareness campaigns and educational programs for years have been reminding those who drink to always ride with someone who has not been drinking. One of the best ways to prepare for safe travels is to have a plan in place ahead of time about who will be driving. The driver can then make decisions accordingly during the festivities to ensure that everyone under his or her care gets home safely. If others have been the designated driver in the past, maybe this year, you can return the favor.
Last month, Connecticut U.S. Attorney Deirdre Daly announced the launch of the Connecticut Human Trafficking Task Force, a group dedicated to combatting sexual and labor exploitation for financial gain around the state. The issue of sex trafficking, in particular, is quickly reaching alarming levels of concern, as the Connecticut Department of Children and Families has received more than 80 referrals of possible trafficking victims just this year.
“Modern-Day Slavery”
At the press conference announcing the creation of the task force, Daly made very strong comments regarding the seriousness of the problem. “Over the last several years,” she said, “it has become increasingly clear that human trafficking, and especially the sex trafficking of minors, this cruel victimization of defenseless young girls and sometimes boys, is a form of modern-day slavery.” While law enforcement efforts continue, she observed, the Internet has made the buying and selling of sex with children more available than ever before.
Over the last few years, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy has certainly demonstrated his commitment to criminal justice reform throughout the state. Supporters and critics alike have acknowledged his efforts in allowing the justice system to focus on corrective action and saving the harshest penalties for the most violent and dangerous offenders. In a speech last month at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford, the Democratic governor outlined additional plans to continue in that vein in the coming months. For some, however, Malloy’s proposal for confidential trials for some offenders push the limits of reform just a little too far.
Juveniles and Young Adults
There is a growing amount of research that suggests that human brain is not fully formed until a person reaches his or her mid-20s on average. The age of majority—and the age at which virtually all criminal defendants are treated as adults—in most jurisdictions is only 18. Thus, science seems to indicate, that the maturity difference between and 18-year-old and a 25-year-old is significant, especially related to criminal penalties and rehabilitation. One of Governor Malloy’s stated intentions is to raise the age of adult criminal responsibility to age 21, creating additional opportunities for reform.
According to estimates from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, more than 10,000 people are killed every year in drunk driving accidents, with nearly 300,000 more being injured. Of course, in any such crash, the individual who chose to get behind the wheel while intoxicated bears the bulk of the responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused. However, the law in Connecticut provides that there may be other liable parties, including the owner of a bar or other establishment that may have overserved the drunk driver prior to he or she getting on the road.
Social Host Liability
Throughout the state of Connecticut, it is against the law for any establishment to sell or otherwise provide alcohol to an intoxicated person. In most cases, an offending bar owner is subject to a $1000 fine per occurrence. If, however, a bar serves an intoxicated person and that person subsequently injures another or causes other damages, the seller may be held liable for the injuries or damages, up to $250,000. The law, known as the Dram Shop Act, requires an injured party to show that the bar or its employees acted recklessly and/or intentionally continued to serve the intoxicated person, as action on the basis of negligence alone is not permitted if the intoxicated person is of legal drinking age.
When a person is injured in a car accident, by a defective product, or by any other means, he or she will often be entitled to seek compensation from the party or parties whose actions or negligence ultimately caused the injuries. Besides not being injured at all, the best-case scenario for such a claimant would be the existence of clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the defendant(s), and that the actions were completely responsible for the resulting harm.
However, in the real world, select few personal injury cases are that simple. More commonly, actions or negligence on the part of the injured person are at least partially to blame, and it is often left to a jury to determine the extent of that responsibility. The idea of comparative negligence, sometimes called comparative fault, can greatly impact an injured party’s ability to recover personal injury damages, depending upon the nature of the situation.
For most Connecticut residents, there are few things more revolting than the offense of child pornography. Such disgust is generally a result of a society’s healthy desire to protect children and to punish those who would cause children harm. The issue of child pornography is so sensitive, however, that many—including judges, lawyers, and most especially politicians—find it difficult to discuss in a constructive manner. This, unfortunately, means that those accused and convicted of possessing child pornography are subject to mandatory minimum sentences, and the presiding judges are granted virtually no discretion in getting the offender the help that he—and it is usually men—so desperately needs.
Required Penalties
Possession of child pornography offenses is categorized in the Connecticut Penal Code in three degrees, based on the nature and amount of pornographic material. A third-degree offense involves the possession of up to 20 images, including up to 20 frames of video of a single child. Second-degree offenses include between 20 and 50 images, and more than 20 frames of video. Possessing child pornography in the first degree involves 50 or more images, depictions of actual or threatened infliction of serious injury, or more explicit video depictions. The law provides a mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed upon conviction of:
Across the country, including right here in Connecticut, the decriminalization of minor marijuana possession is well underway. To date, 14 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation removing the threat of criminal penalties for, at least, low-level marijuana possession with some going as far fully legalizing recreational use.
Decriminalization is not the same as legalization, of course, and in most of the 14 states possessing marijuana is still against the law. Rather than prosecuting it as a crime, however, possession is treated as a civil infraction, similar to a speeding ticket. This creates a dilemma of sorts for many law enforcement officers. In neighboring Massachusetts, that dilemma was resolved last month when the commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled that traffic stops are no longer permitted solely on the suspicion of marijuana use or possession.
A new chapter has just begun in the story of personal injury law in the state of Connecticut. A noteworthy decision by the state Supreme Court last month recognized, for the first time, the rights of minor children to file a loss of consortium claim following an injury to a parent. Legal experts around the state and throughout the country have recognized the ruling as a large step forward, as a majority of jurisdictions in the United States already permit such action. In its decision, however, the Court included certain restrictions that may limit loss of consortium claims in particular situations.
The Case
In 2008, a West Haven man was hit by a car while riding his bicycle. He died three days later, and his wife filed suit against the car’s driver on several counts, including wrongful death, loss of spousal consortium, and loss of parental consortium on behalf of the couple’s three children. The trial court determined appropriate wrongful death damages to be almost $3 million, along with a $1 million award for the loss spousal consortium. Due to contributory negligence findings, the awards were reduced by 42 percent, and the actual awarded damages totaled about $2.3 million. The loss of parental consortium claim, however, was rejected. The children appealed, and Campos v. Coleman eventually made its way to the state Supreme Court.
50 Founders Plaza
