Georgia Wilson–Service v. Thomas P. Neville (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION IN RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT (# 128)

STATEMENT OF CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes § 52–212a and Practice Book § 16–35, moves to set aside the jury verdict entered in this matter and seeks a new trial.   The plaintiff argues that the jury's verdict is contrary to the evidence presented and does not reasonably support the jury's verdict and thus, a new trial is warranted.   The plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict was filed on May 12, 2010, however due to a clerical error the matter did not get placed on the non-arguable calendar until June 22, 2011 whereupon this court immediately scheduled the matter for oral argument which took place on July 18, 2011.

DISCUSSION

On May 3, 2010, the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, Thomas P. Neville.   Liability was contested and the defendant had alleged special defenses, asserting that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's own negligence.   In addition, the issue of damages was contested.   The court charged the jury that they could return a verdict for the plaintiff or defendant or a verdict based on comparative negligence.   There were no special interrogatories propounded to the jury on the issue of liability or damages.   Thus, the court and the parties do not know whether the jury believed the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault which would result in a defendant's verdict or whether the jury believed that the plaintiff did not meet her burden as to proving damages.

The legal standard for setting aside a jury verdict is well-settled.   The trial court possesses the inherent power to set aside the jury's verdict if the court is of the opinion the verdict is against the law or the evidence.   Howard v. MacDonald, 270 Conn. 111, 126, 851 A.2d 1142 (2004).  “In passing upon a motion to set aside a verdict, the trial judge must do just what every juror ought to do in arriving at a verdict.   The juror must use all his experience, his knowledge of human nature, his knowledge of human events, past and present, his knowledge of the motive which influence and control human action, and test the evidence in the case according to such knowledge and tender his verdict accordingly ․ The trial judge in considering the verdict must do the same ․ and if, in the exercise of all his knowledge from this source, he finds the verdict to be so clearly against the weight of the evidence in the case as to indicate that the jury did not correctly apply the law to the facts in evidence in the case, or were governed by ignorance, prejudice, corruption or partiality, then it is his duty to set aside that verdict and grant a new trial.”  Schroeder v. Triangulum Associates, 259 Conn. 325, 329–30, 789 A.2d 459 (2002).

The ultimate test is whether given the evidence offered at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict;  Herb v. Kerr, 190 Conn. 136, 140, 459 A.2d 521 (1983);  the jury reasonably could have concluded as it did.  Id. “A motion to set aside the verdict should be granted if the jury reasonably and legally could not have reached the determination that [it] did in fact reach.  [Put differently], [i]f the jury, without conjecture, could not have found a required element of the cause of action, it cannot withstand a motion to set aside the verdict ․ Thus, the role of the trial court on a motion to set aside the jury's verdict is not to sit as [an added] juror, but rather, to decide whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the jury could reasonably have reached the verdict that it did ․ As a corollary, it is the court's duty to set aside the verdict when it finds that it does manifest injustice, and is palpably against the evidence.”  (Emphasis added.)  Rawls v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 130 Conn.App. 502, 506, 23 A.3d 100 (2011).

The issue before the jury was a claim of negligence.   The “essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established:  duty;  breach of that duty;  causation;  and actual injury.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 269 Conn. 672, 687 n.13, 849 A.2d 813 (2004).   In order to prove her claim for negligence, the plaintiff was obligated to prove each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence.

In her motion to set aside the verdict, the plaintiff focuses her argument on the evidence she alleges adequately proves a breach of duty;  however, the jury also had to consider the elements of causation and actual injury.   Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff's argument regarding a breach of duty were persuasive, a reasonable jury may not have given credit to the evidence offered by the plaintiff as to whether the plaintiff, in light of the nature of the collision, suffered actual injuries or whether those injuries were caused by the accident.   Since no interrogatories were submitted to the jury, the court cannot make a determination as to which element or elements the jury decided were not sufficiently proven.

Therefore, given the evidence provided at trial, this court cannot find the verdict of the jury to be so clearly against the weight of the evidence in the case, so as to indicate that the jury did not correctly apply the law to the facts in evidence in the case, or were governed by ignorance, prejudice, corruption or partiality.   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, especially the evidence of the low speed and circumstances of the collision as well as the minor nature of the resulting property damage, the jury reasonably could have concluded as it did.

For the aforementioned reasons, the court hereby denies plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

Wilson, J.

Wilson, Robin L., J.