*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
DANIEL KLEIN v. QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY

(SC 20405)

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins,

Ecker, Vertefeuille and Bright, Js.*

Argued June 10—officially released December 7, 2020**

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for the defendant’s alleged

negligence, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial

district of New Haven and tried to the jury before Wahla,

J.; verdict and judgment for the defendant, from which

the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, Lavine

and Keller, Js., with Bishop, J., dissenting, which affirmed

the trial court’s judgment, and the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Steven D. Jacobs, for the appellant (plaintiff).

James E. Wildes, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Daniel Klein, brought

this premises liability action against the defendant,

Quinnipiac University, for injuries he suffered while

riding his bicycle on the defendant’s campus. Following

a trial, the jury returned a general verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court,

arguing that the trial court improperly declined to give

a licensee instruction to the jury and that the trial court

improperly admitted certain testimony regarding the plaintiff’s speed. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial

court properly declined to give a licensee instruction

and that, even if it was error, it was harmless. The Appellate Court also concluded that the general verdict rule

barred its review of the plaintiff’s evidentiary claim.

The plaintiff now appeals, following our grant of certification,1

from the judgment of the Appellate Court,

affirming the judgment in favor of the defendant. Klein

v. Quinnipiac University, 193 Conn. App. 469, 470–71,

219 A.3d 911 (2019). On appeal, the plaintiff’s claims

are solely limited to the Appellate Court’s ruling on his

instructional claim. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that

the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) the

trial court did not err in failing to give the licensee instruction in the present case, and (2) any error was harmless.

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we

have determined that the appeal should be dismissed on

the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

* This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this

court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D’Auria,

Mullins, Ecker and Vertefeuille. Thereafter, Judge Bright was added to the

panel, and he has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording

of the oral argument prior to participating in this decision.

** December 7, 2020, the date that this decision was released as a slip

opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.

1 We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal from the

Appellate Court, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court

correctly conclude that the trial court had properly decided to instruct the

jury regarding the duty of care owed by a landowner to a trespasser but not

to instruct the jury regarding the duty of care owed to a licensee?’’ And (2)

‘‘[i]f the answer to the first question is ‘no,’ did the Appellate Court correctly

conclude that the error was harmless?’’ Klein v. Quinnipiac University, 334

Conn. 903, 219 A.3d 799 (2019).