Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Citation
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Parent Document
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1985-08-27
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
Full Text
834 charsIt is difficult to say whether the evidence ultimately ruled inadmissible affected the trial court’s decision; *121Kovacs v. Szentes, 130 Conn. 229, 232, 33 A.2d 124 (1943); whether the evidentiary defect might have been cured; see Rischall v. Bauchmann, 132 Conn. 637, 646, 46 A.2d 898 (1946); or whether the plaintiffs would have introduced other evidence if they had known that this evidence was to be excluded. See Fuller v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra, 63-64. Given the potential use of the evidence as an admission that the defendant consented to pay the plaintiffs $3600 to paint the premises; see footnote 2, supra; and the unorthodox manner of its exclusion, we cannot say that the plaintiffs were not harmed. A new trial is therefore required. Rischall v. Bauchmann, supra; Fuller v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra.