Although it is true that an ordinary consumer may, under certain circumstances, be able to form expectations as to the safety of a product, the Appellate Court consistently has held, as in its 2006 decision in Keeney v. Mystic Valley Hunt Club, Inc., that "expert testimony is required when the question involved goes beyond the field of the ordinary knowledge and experience of judges or jurors."
White v. Mazda Motor Of America, Inc.
Connecticut Appellate Court
November 12, 2012
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to Connecticut Law Tribune. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.