Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.3-3

Connecticut law recognizes that there are some situations in which the period set in a statute of

limitation does not apply, or in which the date when the period begins to run is suspended or

delayed. These situations are referred to as “tolling” the statute of limitations. The time

specified for bringing suit does not run during a time when the statute of limitations is tolled.

The plaintiff has alleged that one [or more] of these situations is present, and that the statute of

limitation therefore does not apply in the way the defendant asserts. The plaintiff has the burden

of proving that the statute of limitation is tolled for the reason that (he/she) asserts.

A. Continuing course of conduct

The statute of limitation is applied differently if the incident on which the claim is based is part

of a continuing course of conduct between the parties. The plaintiff has alleged that <describe

claim> was not an isolated transaction but was part of a continuing course of conduct in which

the defendant engaged over a period of time. To establish a continuing course of conduct, the

plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant assumed a duty that remained in existence after

commission of what is alleged to be the original wrong committed against the plaintiff. If the

incident at issue in the suit was part of a continuing course of conduct, then the plaintiff may

prevail on claims resulting from any act that was part of that continuing course of conduct, even

if the particular act was outside the __ year limitation period. If the incident was not part of a

continuing course of conduct, but a separate instance of the defendant undertaking a duty that

ended with the completion of the transaction, the plaintiff cannot prevail on claims based on

those incidents that were not brought within ___ years of bringing suit.

In deciding whether there was a continuing course of conduct, you must determine what duty

the defendant assumed, and when that duty terminated. The fact that parties may in fact have

engaged in additional transactions at a later date may be evidence of a continuing course of

conduct, or it may be evidence only of a series of separate transactions, depending on what duty

you find the defendant assumed in each transaction. You must decide whether the plaintiff has

proved that the conduct that occurred outside the time limit for bringing suit was or was not part

of a continuing course of conduct.

Even where there is a continuing course of conduct, the plaintiff’s claim is barred if (he/she)

failed to bring (his/her) claim within __ years of the most recent part of that course of conduct.