Court Opinion

ID: 9755520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:41:12.580912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:08.436600
License: Public Domain

Baldwin, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached in the opinion. The complaint alleged an operation performed on November 2,1950, but made no mention of any other. It went on to recite that the plaintiff “will in the future lose a large sum for wages and be required to expend further large sums for medical and doctors bills.” The opinion holds that “the allegations of the complaint were broad enough to cover damages for the second operation.” With this statement I cannot agree. “[Wjhere the damages are special the matter must be distinctly averred in the declaration in order to apprise the defendant of the nature of the claim.” Tomlinson v. Derby, 43 Conn. 562, 567. When evidence of the second operation was first offered and gone into at considerable length, the defendants were privileged to objeet to its admission. Having failed to do so, *272they waived their right to raise an objection on the following day when additional evidence of the second operation was being presented. The matter of variance, then, should be disposed of on the ground of waiver rather than, as the opinion holds, by determining that the variance was immaterial.
In this opinion O’Sullivan, J., concurred.