Robertos Dos Santos v. Sandor Janos et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, MOTIONS FOR REMITITUR AND MOTION FOR ADDITUR

The plaintiff instituted the present action seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurring in July of 2007 on Route 95 in Westport, Connecticut.   Liability was admitted and the issues were submitted to the jury for a determination of damages.   The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $5,477.00 in economic damages and $81,200.00 for non-economic damages for a total award of $86,677.00.

The defendant has now filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a remittitur.   The only claim of error made by the defendant is that the court, over an exception by the defendant's counsel, permitted the jury to award damages for permanent injury when there was no evidence submitted as to life expectancy or life expectancy tables nor was any request for the court to take judicial notice of life expectany tables.   The defendant cites to the court the case of Acanpora v. Ledewitz, 159 Conn. 377 (1970).   In the Acanpora case, the Court noted that “because a new trial on the issue of damages will be required” ․ it “was erroneous for the court to have allowed the jury to consider damages based upon the probable duration of the plaintiff's life without instructing the jury as to what that duration might be;  on the basis of the evidence offered at trial or judicial notice of accepted mortality table.”  (PP. 304 & 305).

In the present case, there was a general instruction to the jury that the decision in the case must be based upon the evidence submitted during the course of the trial.   The plaintiff's age was available to the jury and they also had an opportunity to observe his testimony.   The injuries for which damages were sought were not of a life threatening nature.   The court did however not make mention to the jury the absence of life expectancy tables nor any specific instruction that life expectancy must be determined only on a basis of the evidence submitted during the trial.

There are a number of superior court cases in which damages for permanent injury have been awarded in the absence of the existence of life expectancy tables.   See such cases as Robinson v. Boyer, Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland, docket no.   CV08 5002495 (Aug. 6, 2008, Vacchelli, J.);   Lespier–Badillo v. Santigata, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, docket no.   CV04 5000982 (Jan. 30, 2007, Rubino, J.);   Smith v. Department of Transportation, Superior Court, Judicial District of Danbury, docket no.   CV03 0348805 (Jan. 7, 2005, Shay, J.).   There are also a number of jurisdictions who held at the introduction of life expectancy tables is not a prerequisite to an award of damages for permanent injuries.   See such cases as Hall v. Palmetto Enterprises II, Inc. of Clinton, 282 S.C. 87 93, 317 S.E.2d 140 (1984);  Hutzell v. Boyer, 252 Md. 227, 238, 249 A.2d 449 (1969);  Garton v. Powers, 252 Mich. 442, 445, 233 N.W. 373 (1930);  S.A. Gerrard Co. v. Couch, 43 Ariz. 57, 65–66, 29 P.2d 151 (1934);  Lawrence v. Nelson, 145 W.Va. 134, 147–48, 113 S.E.2d 241 (1960);  see also 25 C.J.S 705, 712 damages § 308, 314 (2002).

In the present case, the jury had an opportunity to view the plaintiff and was well aware of his age.   Injuries claimed in the lawsuit were not life threatening.   The jury could then use general knowledge of how long people live.   If a life expectancy table had been introduced into evidence, it would only be evidence that the jury could consider because any one individual might live a longer or shorter period of time.   See Geary v. Wentworth Laboratories, Inc., 60 Conn.App. 622, 624 (2000).   The jury was not misled in any way.   The absence of life expectancy table did not affect the verdict in any way, and, accordingly any error was harmless.  Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241, 248 (2010).   Accordingly the defendant's motion for a remittitur and for a new trial is hereby denied.

The plaintiff has also filed a motion for an additur based upon the court's ruling under which the issue of future medical expenses was not submitted to the jury.   The evidence was insufficient for an award of future medical damages and the defendant's motion for an additur is hereby denied.

RUSH, J.T.R.

Rush, William B., J.T.R.