Howd & Ludorf, llc, is a regional civil litigation firm with offices located in Hartford, Connecticut, and Wellesley, Massachusetts.  The firm frequently handles cases involving municipal law, employment law, product liability, insurance coverage and defense, workers' compensation and toxic torts.  Over the past twenty-five years, Howd & Ludorf, llc, attorneys have handled many of the cases that have shaped the Connecticut legal landscape in these areas.

Notable Cases

    Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 216 Conn. 533, 582 A.2d 1174 (1990), which makes the Connecticut Product Liability Act the exclusive remedy for product liability actions;

    Haesche v. Kissner, 229 Conn. 213, 640 A.2d 89 (1994), which states that an air gun manufacturer cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a danger of which the user knew or should have known;

    Pajor v. Wallingford, 47 Conn.App. 365, 704 A.2d 247 (1997), cert. denied, 244 Conn. 917 (1998),  which holds that in order to be held liable under the defective highway statute, a municipality must have notice of the specific defect causing the injury, rather than notice of general conditions likely to cause a defect;

    Elliott v. Waterbury, 245 Conn. 385, 715 A.2d 27 (1998), which extended governmental immunity to the owner of a road on which a jogger was shot and killed;

    Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn. 23, 710 A.2d 688 (1998), and ATC Partnership v. Windham, 251 Conn. 597, 741 A.2d 305 (1999), which frame the parameters of a cause of action for money damages for civil rights violations brought pursuant to the Connecticut Constitution;

    Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc., 249 Conn. 709, 735 A.2d 306 (1999), which holds that a general release of a tortfeasor is binding on vicariously liable defendants;

    Edelman v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, 53 Conn.App. 54, 728 A.2d 531 (1999), which expands the standard CGL liquor liability exclusion; 

    Tryon v. North Branford, 58 Conn.App. 702, 755 A.2d 317 (2000), which extends governmental immunity to firefighters engaged in fire duties even when charged with violations of the dog bite statute (imposing strict liability on the owner/keeper of the dog); and

    Pane v. Danbury, 267 Conn. 669, 841 A.2d 684 (2004), which held that no claim for money damages exists for violation of the Freedom of Information Act; and that municipalities cannot be sued directly, except pursuant to a statute that operates as a waiver of municipal immunity

 

________________________________________________________________