Deak v. Deak

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a court may award punitive damages for loss of consortium in addition to any other punitive damages awarded because it is a separate cause of action from any suit from which it is derivative
• noting that the PLA changed the law of comparative responsibility and the statute of limitations with respect to product liability claims
• recognizing that “[i]n Connecticut, a cause of action accrues,” generally, “when . . . the plaintiff discovers or should discover, through the exercise of reasonable care, that he or she has been injured and that the defendant's conduct caused such injury”
• applying language of Public Acts 1979, No. 79-631, § 107, that its provisions will be applicable to “ ‘all product liability claims brought on or after October 1, 1979’ ”
• “We conclude that there is no reason to prohibit the use of one’s smoking history in determining comparative responsibility in this case involving asbestosis.”
• plaintiff's smoking found 75% contributory to his lung cancer, citing Michigan's Brisboy v. Fibreboard Corp., supra

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).