Champagne v. Deming , 162 Conn. 609 ( 1971 )

Per Curiam.

The court’s charge on the special defense of the assumption of risk in effect removed that defense from the consideration of the jury. The charge was further prejudicial in that the jury were instructed that the failure of one of the defendants to testify “permits a strong inference that he could not vindicate his cause by his testimony.”

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to grant the motion to set the verdict aside.