Melerne Poulard v. Patricia Ardigo (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT

The plaintiff instituted the present action seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a rear end automobile accident occurring in Stamford, Connecticut.   The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff has now filed a motion to set aside that verdict.

The plaintiff's witnesses presented evidence that they were struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant and that the impact was heavy.   The defendant presented evidence that there was no accident and that there was no impact.   Evidence was also presented that neither vehicle sustained any property damage.

“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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Marchell v. Whelchel, 66 Conn.App. 574, 582 (2001).  “A verdict should be disturbed only by considerations of the most persuasive character, as where the verdict shocks the sense of justice or the mind is convinced that it is in fact entirely disproportionate to the injury.   The evidence offered at trial must be given the most favorable construction to which it is reasonably entitled to support the verdict.   Only under the most compelling circumstances may the court set aside the jury verdict because to do so interferes with a litigant's constitutional right in appropriate cases to have the issues of facts decided by a jury.”  Hunte v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 68 Conn.App. 534, 541–41 (2002).  “The trier (of fact) is free to accept or to reject, in whole or in part, the evidence offered by either party.   The weight to be accorded to the testimony is a matter for the jury to determine.”  (Citations and internal quotations marks omitted.)  Lindman v. Nugent, 59 Conn.App. 43, 46 (2000).

The jury was free to credit the testimony of the defendant that no accident occurred and that no impact took place.

The plaintiff also asserts that one of the jurors appeared to have difficulty hearing the instructions of the law to the jury.   However, such “difficulty” was not observed by the court nor was it called to the court's attention by either counsel or by any member of the jury and no exceptions were taken by either counsel to the instructions of the court.   While the jurors did request a written copy of the instructions by the court, the jury was informed that during their deliberations they could have the instructions of the court or testimony of any of the witnesses played back for them if they thought such action was desirable.

The motion to set aside the verdict therefore is denied.

RUSH, J.T.R.

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