CT · jury_instructions
Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.6-19
Agency - Multiple Defendants - Vicarious Liability
In this case, there are two defendants. The plaintiff(s) (have/has) alleged in this case that
<defendant A> rendered services to the plaintiff(s) as an agent of <defendant B>. <Defendant
A>’s relationship with <defendant B> is in dispute.
You will not consider the issue of whether <defendant B> is responsible for the conduct of
<defendant A>, if you do not find, in the first instance, that <defendant A> was negligent and that
the negligence was a proximate cause of any of the injuries claimed by the plaintiff(s).
If you find that <defendant A> was negligent and that the negligence was a proximate cause of
any of the plaintiff’s injuries, then you have reached a verdict for the plaintiff(s) as to <defendant
A>. You must then go on to determine whether <defendant A> was an actual or apparent agent
of <defendant B> before returning a verdict on the plaintiff’s negligence claim as to <defendant
B>.
If you find that <defendant A> was not negligent and/or was not the proximate cause of any of
the injuries claimed by the plaintiff(s), then you have reached a verdict in favor of both
<defendant A> and <defendant B> on the plaintiff’s negligence claim.
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
c49c50543682a61fe7f46d801ebffd60eef31befa53a3789e95148b13b89fcee
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.