Matthew Johnson v. Hector O. Page et al. (2010)

DECISION PURSUANT TO PRACTICE BOOK § 64-1

On July 20, 2010, the undersigned denied the defendants' Motion to Set Aside the Verdict and Motion for Remittitur without decision.   Pursuant to Practice Book § 64-1, the court now states its reasons for those decisions.

Motion to Set Aside the Verdict

There was evidence in the form of the testimony of the plaintiff to support past lost wages and the plaintiff did not claim future lost wages.   Therefore, there was no merit to the defendants' argument that the amount of economic damages awarded was excessive and/or not based on properly admitted evidence.   The evidence with respect to noneconomic damages at trial was largely uncontroverted by the defendants and, if believed, would warrant the amount of noneconomic damages awarded.   Since there was no breakdown in the verdict as to past versus future noneconomic damages, it is impossible to tell how much the jury allocated to each and, therefore, impossible to determine whether any reduction to present value was warranted.

There was evidence of the plaintiff's comparative negligence in that he was in the roadway.   However, the vehicle driven by Mr. Hottovy had stopped in time to avoid hitting the plaintiff.   The defendants' truck failed to stop in time to avoid colliding with the Hottovy vehicle.   Based on the foregoing, the jury was not required to allocate to the plaintiff any fault for causing the accident.

The testimony of Tracy Hottovy that the defendants' vehicle nearly came into contact with his vehicle two miles before the accident was admitted for the limited purpose of negating the defendants' defense that the accident was due to unavoidable circumstances and the jury was given a limiting instruction to that effect.

For the foregoing reasons the Motion to Set Aside the Verdict was denied.

Motion for Remittitur

As stated above, there was evidence in the form of the testimony of the plaintiff to support past lost wages and the plaintiff did not claim future lost wages.   With respect to noneconomic damages, there was evidence from Dr. Roback that the plaintiff had suffered permanent injuries to various parts of his body.   There was also considerable evidence, which was largely uncontroverted, that the effects of the accident had dramatically changed the plaintiff's life for the worse.   Such evidence could reasonably warrant the amount of noneconomic damages awarded by the jury.   Therefore, the Motion for Remittitur was denied.

By the court,

Aurigemma, J.

Aurigemma, Julia L., J.