Perez v. Cumba
138 Conn. App. 351
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Premises liability case involving a social invitee and third‑party criminal acts.
- Party hosting the event was the defendant; the decedent attended as a social guest.
- A prior fight occurred at the party; defendant escorted the decedent off the premises.
- Decedent was later fatally stabbed after returning to confront a group of invitees.
- Jury returned a general verdict for the defendant; trial court instructed on notice of a specific dangerous condition.
- Plaintiff appeals, challenging the jury instruction on notice and other related rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice of the specific dangerous condition was required | Perez; instruction improperly required knife‑specific notice | Cumba; instruction aligned with premises liability standards | Yes; instruction improper and shifted burden |
| Whether the case falls under Merhi social invitee liability rather than defective premises liability | Merhi governs social invitee liability for intentional acts | Premises liability theory; defense based on notice of defect | Yes; case should follow Merhi standard |
| Whether the general verdict rule bars review of instructional error | Interrogatories framed to superseding‑cause defense show grounds for review | General verdict appellate relief applies when grounds are unclear | No; general verdict rule does not preclude review here |
| Whether instructional error was harmless | Error undermined correct liability framework | Not specifically addressed beyond general argument | No; error was harmful and prejudicial |
| Whether remand for a new trial is required | Improper instruction affected result | Not necessary if verdict upheld | Yes; judgment reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Merhi v. Becker, 164 Conn. 516 (Conn. 1973) (premises liability for intentional third‑party harm; foreseeability focus on general harm)
- Stewart v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 234 Conn. 597 (Conn. 1995) (scope of risk; notice may be foreseeability of harm, not specific weapon)
- Monk v. Temple George Associates, LLC, 273 Conn. 108 (Conn. 2005) (foreseeability standard; disavows elevating burden beyond Merhi)
- Riccio v. Harbour Village Condominium Assn., Inc., 281 Conn. 160 (Conn. 2007) (defective premises duty; notice of specific defect)
- Doe v. Manheimer, 212 Conn. 748 (Conn. 1989) (injury by third party on premises; no need for instrumentality notice)
- Curry v. Burns, 225 Conn. 782 (Conn. 1993) (general verdict rule limitations in multiple theories)