Attorney Profile:

Kevin M. Roche

Kevin M. Roche: Attorney with Halloran & Sage LLP

Biography

Kevin Roche's legal experience spans a broad range of practice areas. His experience as a litigator includes all aspects of litigation including pretrial discovery, jury trials, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. Kevin practices before both the state and federal courts in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Kevin's practice includes auto liability, premises liability, trucking and transportation and professional liability defense with regard to lawyers, real estate agents and architects. Kevin has also defended construction companies in matters concerning serious accidents involving heavy equipment. He also defends stock brokers with respect to negligence and contract claims before the New York Stock Exchange and the NASD. In addition, he has also defended negligence cases arising out of accidents in northeastern navigable waters.

He also represents restaurants and bars with respect to assaults, Dram Shop claims, and negligent supervision claims.

News & Events

Laura Pascale Zaino and Kevin Roche Secure Appellate Victory

Areas of Practice (2)

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Trucking & Transportation

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
860-297-4605  Phone
860-548-0006  Fax
www.halloransage.com
University Attended:
Siena College, B.A., 1983
Law School Attended:
Western New England College School of Law, J.D., 1987
Year of First admission:
1987
Admission:
1987, Massachusetts; 1988, Connecticut; 1988, District of Massacusetts; 1993, District of Connecticut
Memberships:

Associations

Connecticut Bar Association
Connecticut Defense Lawyer's Association
Defense Research Institute

Birth Information:
Bethpage, New York, July 20, 1961
Reported Cases:
Rep Matters: Appellate Court Upholds Applicability of Doctrine of Superseding Cause in Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab; Halloran & Sage recently secured an important appellate victory in Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc., et al, --- Conn. App. --- (Slip. Op. April 4, 2017). A unanimous panel of the Appellate Court confirmed there that the doctrine of superseding cause is alive and well in Connecticut's tort jurisprudence, that it encompasses reckless criminal action and is thus not limited to cases in which the intervening actions were intended to cause harm, as the plaintiff argued.; In Snell, the plaintiff was injured when she was recklessly assaulted by a stolen taxi cab while it was being driven on a sidewalk by its teenaged thieves. The teens had stolen the cab after they found it unattended with the keys in the ignition and they took it for a joyride from one town to another. They were then involved in a rear-end collision with another vehicle and attempted to flee that scene by driving onto the sidewalk where the plaintiff was walking.; The plaintiff sought to recover for her injuries by bringing a negligence claim against the cab's driver and his employer. She did not sue the thieves, however, and the defendants were not permitted under Connecticut law to name them as apportionment defendants because their conduct was not merely negligent. See Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424, 436-39 (2003) (abolishing use of superseding cause doctrine where intervening conduct was negligent and deeming it applicable only to unforeseeable intervening intentional torts, forces of nature and criminal events.) As such, the defendants requested the trial court to instruct the jury that if it found them negligent, it could then assess whether the thieves' intentional and/or criminal actions were superseding causes of the plaintiff's injuries which shielded the defendants from any liability. The plaintiff countered that the doctrine was not applicable because there was no evidence that the thieves specifically intended to harm her. The trial court agreed with the defendants, issued such an instruction, and the jury rendered a defendants' verdict. Its answers to jury interrogatories made it clear that it concluded that the thieves' conduct superseded any negligence on the part of the defendants. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.; Laura Pascale Zaino, member of Halloran & Sage's Appellate Practice Group, argued the appeal for the defendants. Kevin M. Roche successfully tried the case to a defendants' verdict.; Cab Company Not Guilty of Negligence in Jury Trial; In December 2014, after five weeks of trial, Kevin Roche won a jury trial at the Stamford Superior Court, representing a well-established taxi service in the matter of Brenda Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc. Yellow Cab driver, Johnley Sainval, parked his cab at Monterrey Village, a housing complex in Norwalk, CT, and left the cab with the keys in the ignition. While the cab was left unattended, two teenagers, with little driving experience, stole the taxi from the housing complex and drove it to Stamford. In Stamford they were involved in a minor car accident and in an attempt to flee the scene, the driver drove up on the sidewalk striking and severely injuring the plaintiff, Ms. Snell. Ms. Snell alleged negligence on the part of the cab driver for leaving the keys in the ignition. The jury found for the defendant after two hours of deliberations.
ISLN:
902076264

Peer Reviews

  • 4.4/5.0
  • A Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating reflects a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating.

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Client Reviews

Disclaimer

Documents ({{amountArticles}})

Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
Other documents: ,

Hartford, Connecticut

Contact Kevin M. Roche

Please correct the fields highlighted in red.

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.


You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.