Opinion
No. CV07 501 24 10
January 28, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND FOR AN ADDITUR
The plaintiff instituted the present action seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident occurring on November 8, 2005 in Fairfield, Connecticut. Liability was admitted by the defendant and the jury returned a plaintiff's verdict for economic damages in the amount of $1,460.00 (representing only part of the $4,500.00 claimed by the defendant) and non-economic damages in the amount of $1.00 for a total award of $1,461.00. The plaintiff has now moved to set that verdict aside and for an additur asserting that the award of damages is against the evidence and is inadequate. The plaintiff points to the fact that she was treated for over seven months by a chiropractor as well as a visit to an orthopaedic surgeon and that the chiropractor attributed a 5% permanent impairment of the cervical spine arising from the accident.
Under the evidence presented in the case, the jury was entitled to find that the collision was of very low impact producing very limited property damage. The jurors are also entitled to find that the plaintiff denied injury at the accident scene. The jurors are also entitled to find that the plaintiff had prior injuries to her cervical spine particularly resulting from an automobile accident taking place on November 12, 2002. As a result of the 2002 motor vehicle accident the plaintiff's treating chiropractor found that the plaintiff had sustained a 14% impairment of the cervical spine and that, as a result of the 2002 motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff could be expected to require 8 to 12 additional visits per year due to flare-ups of her condition. As a result of the 2002 accident the treating chiropractor also stated that the plaintiff might need further diagnostic studies such as a CT Scan, MRI Scan and that if symptom otology increased she might require a surgical approach. The jury was also entitled to find that the range of motion studies performed after the 2005 motor vehicle accident had improved considerably over the same range of motion studies performed after the 2002 accident.
"A court is empowered to set aside a jury verdict when, in the court's opinion, the verdict is contrary to the law or unsupported by the evidence. A verdict should not be set aside, however, where it is apparent that there was some evidence on which the jury might reasonably have reached its conclusion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Marchell v. Whelchel, 66 Conn.App. 574, 582 (2001). "A verdict should be disturbed only by considerations of the most persuasive character, as where the verdict shocks the sense of justice or the mind is convinced that it is in fact entirely disproportionate to the injury. The evidence offered at trial must be given the most favorable construction to which it is reasonably entitled to support the verdict. Only under the most compelling circumstances may the court set aside the jury verdict because to do so interferes with a litigant's constitutional right in appropriate cases to have the issues of facts decided by a jury. The amount of damages to be awarded is a matter particularly within the scope of the jury." Hunte v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 68 Conn.App. 534, 541-41 (2002). "A jury is not obligated to believe that every injury causes pain or the pain alleged . . . The trier (of fact) is free to accept or to reject, in whole or in part, the evidence offered by either party. The weight to be accorded to the testimony is a matter for the jury to determine." (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Lindman v. Nugent, 59 Conn.App. 43, 46 (2000).
Our courts have determined that there is no per se rule that an award of some economic damages requires an award of economic damages. Indeed the court has stated that such situations must be determined on a case by case analysis. Schroeder v. Trianglum Associates, 259 Conn. 325, 230 (2002); Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174, 188 (2000); see also Gambardella v. Feldman, 294 Conn. 482 (2010) (C.L.J. Jan 19, 2010). "Accordingly, the trial court should examine the evidence to decide whether the jury reasonably could have found that the plaintiff had failed in his burden of proof of the issue. That decision should be made, not on the assumption of the jury made a mistake, bur rather, on the supposition that the jury did exactly what it intended to do." Wichers v. Hatch, supra, 188-89.
In the present action, the plaintiff submitted medical bills in the approximate amount of $4,500.00 of which the jury only awarded $1,460.00. The jury was entitled to find that the plaintiff had disabilities of the cervical spine prior to the accident and that, because of that disability, she was entitled to obtain some medical treatment to see whether the conditions had been worsened as a result of the second automobile accident. The jury decided the remaining issues in favor of the defendant.
Accordingly, the Motion to Set Aside the Verdict and for an Additur is hereby denied.