Brenda Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc. — Ecker, J., Concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees with the majority's reasoning and result but argues that Connecticut's superseding-cause doctrine remains unnecessarily complex and should be reconstructed around the scope-of-the-risk concept. It identifies three principles that could simplify causation analysis and cautions against deciding the continuing validity of an unusual prior apportionment holding without a live controversy. The concurrence also explains that the existing model jury instruction on superseding cause is erroneous, while emphasizing that model instructions generally remain useful and should be verified for accuracy and fit.