2012 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 52 - Civil Actions
Chapter 899 - Evidence
Section 52-178 - Adverse party or officer, agent or employee thereof may be compelled to testify.

A party to a civil action or probate proceeding: (1) May compel any adverse party, any person for whose benefit the action or proceeding is instituted, prosecuted or defended, or any officer, director, managing agent, or other agent or employee having knowledge of facts relevant to the action or proceeding, of a public or private corporation, partnership or association which is an adverse party or for whose benefit the action or proceeding is instituted, prosecuted or defended, to testify as a witness in his behalf, in the same manner and subject to the same rules as other witnesses; (2) may take the deposition of such party or person in the same manner and subject to the same rules as those pertaining to the taking of other depositions; and, (3) in either case, may examine such party to the same extent as an adverse witness.

(1949 Rev., S. 7901; March, 1958, P.A. 27, S. 64; 1959, P.A. 444; 1961, P.A. 177; P.A. 73-209; P.A. 82-160, S. 82.)

History: 1959 act provided party may be examined to same extent as adverse witness; 1961 act extended application to officers, etc. of corporations, partnerships or associations and provided for taking depositions; P.A. 73-209 allowed party to compel agents or employees “having knowledge of facts relevant to the action or proceeding” to testify; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subdiv. indicators.

Cited. 14 CA 178.

History discussed; the act as amended merely broadens definition of “adverse party” to include specified personnel of corporations, partnerships or associations. The taking of depositions is still restricted by sections 52-148, 52-149 and 52-152. 23 CS 249. Cited. 26 CS 338.

In motion to open judgment mover must show how alleged erroneous ruling was prejudicial to him. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 110. Defendant’s failure to produce witnesses, relying on insufficiency of plaintiff’s case, does not permit inference that witness’ testimony would have been favorable to plaintiff. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 649.