Dennie Malone v. Thomas Shaw et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE (# 140) AND MOTION TO ENFORCE (# 137)

On January 21, 2011 the jury returned a defendants' verdict in this case.   The plaintiff has moved (# 140) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.   For the reasons given, the motion must be denied.

“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 ․ In analyzing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the test that we employ is whether, on the basis of the evidence before the jury, a reasonable and properly motivated jury could return a verdict as it did.   (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Marchell v. Whelchel, 66 Conn.App. 574, 582 (2001).  “In considering a motion to set aside the verdict, the court must determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, reasonably supports the jury's verdict.”  (Citations omitted.)  Mather v. Griffin Hospital, 207 Conn. 125, 139 (1988).

Although the defendants admitted liability for causing the accident, they disputed that they caused the plaintiff to suffer the injuries alleged.   The plaintiff sought no treatment for his injuries for eight months following the accident.   The plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Daniel George, testified that in his opinion the injuries were caused by the accident.   The defendants' expert, Dr. Stephen Torrey, testified that he agreed with Dr. George that the plaintiff has a ruptured disc in his low back, but that, in his opinion it was impossible to determine whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused in the accident.   The jury must have believed Dr. Torrey.   We must assume that the jury found against the plaintiff on every issue in the case.   See, e.g., Turturino v. Hurley, 98 Conn.App. 259, 262 (2006).

The jury was instructed that the plaintiff had the burden of proving causation.  “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 that the jury made a mistake, but rather, on the supposition that the jury did exactly what it intended to do.”  Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174, 188-89 (2000).   The verdict for the defendant was not against the weight of the evidence because the jury could have found that the plaintiff had failed to sustain his burden of proof that his current injuries were caused by the accident.

The plaintiff has also moved (# 137) to enforce an alleged oral “high/low” agreement reached before the start of the trial under which the plaintiff would receive a minimum of $20,000 and a maximum of $100,000 regardless of the actual verdict.   It is of interest that prior to the start of evidence, the defendant had filed a motion (# 128) to enforce the same agreement.   The plaintiff had objected (# 133) at that time.   The court had heard oral argument and had deferred decision until after the trial.   Now that the jury has spoken, the parties have reversed their positions on the enforcement of the alleged “high/low” agreement.

It is true that the court has inherent power to enforce summarily a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous.  Audubon Associates v. Barclay & Stubb, 225 Conn. 804, 811 (1993) (emphasis added).  “We hold that a trial court may summarily enforce a settlement agreement within the framework of the original lawsuit as a matter of law when the parties do not dispute the terms of the agreement.”  Id. at 812 (emphasis added).   Here, the parties dispute whether there ever was an agreement.   The court held a hearing at which both attorneys testified.   It is clear that the parties never reached a meeting of the minds on the terms of “high-low” agreement.   The plaintiff's objection (# 133) to enforcement filed before the commencement of evidence sums up the failure to reach an agreement.  “The plaintiff's attorney anticipated that the terms of the high/low agreement would continue to be negotiated until the parties reached a final written agreement that would be signed by all parties.   For example, the plaintiff's attorney would have required that as a condition of entering into a high/low trial agreement that the defendants assign all claims that [they] may have against GEICO insurance company if there was a verdict rendered against them in excess of the insurance policy limits.   Subsequent to the defense attorney drafting the proposed agreement, the plaintiffs attorney sent him a letter explaining that his client was no longer interested in entering into a high/low trial agreement.   Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney rejected the offer to enter into a high/low trial agreement.   Since a signed written agreement was a condition of entering into a high/low trial agreement, the plaintiff never accepted the terms as proposed by the defendants, therefore the parties never had an oral agreement.”   The plaintiff cannot repudiate these words now that the jury has found against him.

For these reasons, the motion to enforce is denied.

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard, J.

Pickard, John W., J.