Green v. Yankee Gas Corp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** ROHAN O. GREEN v. YANKEE GAS CORPORATION (AC 31129) Flynn, C. J., and Beach and Robinson, Js.* Argued March 23 officially released May 4, 2010 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Hon. Lloyd Cutsumpas, judge trial referee.) Rohan O. Green, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff). Sheila A. Huddleston, with whom was Mark K. Ostrowski, for the appellee (defendant). Opinion FLYNN, C. J. The general verdict rule provides that if a jury returns a general verdict for one party, absent jury interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party. Curry v. Burns, 225 Conn. 782, 786, 626 A.2d 719 (1993). The logic underlying the rule is that [w]here there was an error free path available to the jury to reach its verdict, and no special interrogatories were submitted showing which road the jury went down, any judgment rendered on such a verdict must be affirmed. Jackson v. H.N.S. Management Co., 109 Conn. App. 371, 373, 951 A.2d 701 (2008). Our Supreme Court has extended the logic of the general verdict rule to nonjury court trials where the trial judge s actual factual findings provide independent and alternative grounds, distinct from those on which a party appeals, on which the judgment can be supported and affirmed. See In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 979 A.2d 469 (2009). In In re Jorden R., our Supreme Court decided that where alternative grounds found by the reviewing court and unchallenged on appeal would support the trial court s judgment, independent of some challenged ground, the challenged ground that forms the basis of the appeal is moot because the court on appeal could grant no practical relief to the complainant. Id., 556 57. In this case, the plaintiff, Rohan O. Green, fell into a hole excavated by the defendant, Yankee Gas Corporation1. A police officer had shouted out a warning to the plaintiff to avoid the hole; the plaintiff did not heed the warning. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in not permitting him to introduce certain regulations of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration into evidence concerning the requirements of fencing off such a hole. The plaintiff had offered this evidence to prove the defendant s negligence, but, when the court refused to admit it, the plaintiff did not take steps to mark it for identification, thereby failing to preserve it for appellate review. After a court trial, the court independently found that the plaintiff s negligence was responsible for causing his fall, thus barring recovery under our comparative negligence law. It also found that the plaintiff had not proved the nexus between his claims of negligence and the fall sufficient to establish proximate cause, and that he had not proved any resulting damages. These independent findings concerning necessary elements of the plaintiff s cause of action, which the plaintiff has not challenged, must stand. In re Jorden R. counsels that it is not the province of an appellate court to decide moot issues disconnected from the granting of actual relief. The appeal is dismissed. In this opinion the other judges concurred. * The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 1 Although the proper name of the defendant is Yankee Gas Services Company, because the plaintiff s complaint identified the defendant as Yankee Gas Corporation and the parties proceeded that way at trial, we will do likewise for convenience.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
