Opinion
CV166027647
12-17-2018
Millagros WILLIAMS v. GROTON HOSPITALITY, LLC
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Swienton, J.
This case arises out of a slip and fall brought by the plaintiff, Millagros Williams, against the defendant, Groton Hospitality, LLC. The case was tried to a jury, and on October 25, 2018, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
In a motion dated October 30, 2018, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict and order a new trial. The defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff’s motion, and the court heard oral argument on the motion.
The plaintiff provided no authority for the granting of this motion. The authority for the motion is Practice Book § 16-35.
In ruling on the plaintiff’s motion, the court is mindful of the standard relating to sustaining a verdict. "The evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and to sustaining the verdict ... 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. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McDermott v. Calvary Baptist Church, 68 Conn.App. 284, 293-94, 791 A.2d 284 (2002). "[A] trial court may set aside a verdict on a finding that the verdict is manifestly unjust because the jury, on the basis of the evidence presented, mistakenly applied a legal principle or because there is no evidence to which the legal principles of the case can be applied." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sargis v. Donahue, 142 Conn.App. 505, 511, 65 a.3d 20, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 914, 70 A.3d 38 (2013).
"A trial court has the inherent power to set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict. It is proper for a trial court, using due caution, and in the exercise of its discretion, to set aside a verdict when satisfied that ... its rulings on evidence were erroneous and that those erroneous ... rulings were consequential enough to have had a substantial effect on the verdict. Our case law emphasizes, however, that this power vested in the trial court is to be exercised with caution." Hamernick v. Bach, 64 Conn.App. 160, 163, 779 A.2d 806 (2001).
The plaintiff argues that the verdict should be set aside because the court failed to charge the jury on the specification of negligence in paragraph 3b of the plaintiff’s complaint. This allegation provided that an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendant was the defendant’s failure to screw down the filter cover. She argues that there was sufficient evidence to charge on this allegation.
The court declined to charge on this allegation because the plaintiff failed to produce any expert witness as to the standard of care with respect to pool safety and whether the defendant’s decision to not screw down the filter cover violated said standard. A key dispute was whether a filter cover without screws automatically constituted a defect on the premises. No expert testimony was offered, either by the plaintiff or the defendant, which provided that failure to screw down the filter cover was a per se act of negligence.
The director of operations on behalf of the defendant testified as to the maintenance of the pool and Jacuzzi area. He did not testify as an expert in pool safety, and provided testimony as to the maintenance and inspections of the areas by their maintenance crew. He further testified that from the time the hotel opened until the time of the alleged incident there were no screws in the filter cover. Although the defendant filed a motion in limine regarding subsequent remedial measures, which motion was granted, the witness testified that immediately after the alleged fall, screws were placed in the filter cover that day. Regardless, this act was neither an admission of negligence by the defendant, nor evidence that the standard for safety was to have screws in the filter cover.
The court did charge the jury that the alleged defect was an "unsecured filter cover." The court charged the jury as to allegations of negligence by the defendant as the following:
Failed to secure the filter cover; and/or
Failed to properly inspect the pool area; and/or
Failed to properly supervise the pool area; and/or
Failed to properly repair and/or remedy the unsecured filter cover; and/or
Failed to warn its patrons of the unsafe filter cover. (Jury instructions, Plaintiff’s Specifications of Negligence).
The court finds that the jury could reasonably, logically and legally have reached its conclusion from the evidence viewed most favorably to the plaintiff. The jury could have determined that a filter cover without screws rendered it unsecure and was a negligent act on behalf of the defendant causing the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. There was no evidence that simply not having screws in the filter cover was an act of negligence on the part of the defendant.
The motion to set aside the verdict is denied.
The court notes that after it charged the jury, it inquired if there were any exceptions to the charge. Both counsel indicated there were not.