Jonathan Siriors v. Mark Kudlach et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL NO. 136

The present action arises from allegations of personal injuries resulting from a motorcycle accident involving the plaintiff, Jonathan Siriors, and the defendants, Mark Kudlach and Shoreline Sewer & Drain, LLC. Following the trial on April 4, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, which awarded him $4,000 in economic damages and $6,000 in noneconomic damages.   The jury found the plaintiff 30 percent comparatively negligent in the accident.   Neither party requested jury interrogatories.   On April 11, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict and motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law, contrary to the court's instructions and contrary to the evidence.   On April 25, 2013, the defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the verdict was not contrary to the evidence or the law.   The court heard argument on the matter at a hearing on May 13, 2013.

LAW RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT

“[I]t is the court's duty to set aside the verdict when it finds that it does manifest injustice, and is ․ palpably against the evidence.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Sigular v. Gilson, 141 Conn.App. 581, 592, 62 A.3d 564 (2013).  “We review the verdict in this case in the light of certain principles.   First, the amount of an award is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trier of facts ․ Second, the court should not interfere with the jury's determination except when the verdict is plainly excessive or exorbitant.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Duncan v. Mill Management Co. of Greenwich, Inc., 308 Conn. 1, 33, 60 A.3d 222 (2013).  “[T]he relevant inquiry is whether the verdict falls within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation or whether it so shocks the conscience as to compel the conclusion that it was due to partiality, prejudice or mistake.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Earlington v. Anastasi, 293 Conn. 194, 207, 976 A.2d 689 (2009).

“Although the court has broad discretion in setting aside a verdict, its discretion is not boundless ․ Upon issues regarding which, on the evidence, there is room for reasonable difference of opinion among fair-minded men, the conclusion of a jury, if one at which honest men acting fairly and intelligently might arrive reasonably, must stand ․ [I]f there is a reasonable basis in the evidence for the jury's verdict, unless there is a mistake in law or some other valid basis for upsetting the result other than a difference of opinion regarding the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, the trial court should let the jury work [its] will ․ [T]he court should not assume that the jury made a mistake, but should suppose that the jury did exactly what it intended to do.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Sigular v. Gilson, supra, 141 Conn.App. 593.

ANALYSIS

The plaintiff argues that the verdict rendered in this case is contrary to the law, contrary to the court's instructions and contrary to the evidence.   The plaintiff bases this argument on the jury's attempt to award the plaintiff no economic damages and $10,000 in noneconomic damages.   When instructed by the court to reconsider the verdict, the jury then returned with the verdict of $4,000 in economic damages and $6,000 in noneconomic damages.   The plaintiff claims that this verdict could only be arrived at if the jury ignored the law by merely taking $4,000 from the noneconomic damages and placing it in economic damages without any regard to the evidence.   The plaintiff further argues that there was no combination of his medical expenses that would total $4,000, and his total medical bills were for $5,383.39 and $615, which exceeds the amount of economic damages awarded.   The defendants counter that the verdict is supported by the law and evidence, that the jury does not have to award all medical bills and there is no evidence that the jury ignored the law.

In order to set aside the verdict, the court would have to find that the amount awarded is excessive or unreasonable.   In the present case, there is a reasonable basis for the jury to have found an amount of economic damages that cover a majority of the medical expenses the plaintiff incurred.   The amount may not be the sum of all the medical bills in evidence but the jury was “at liberty to accept what part of [the evidence] [it] chose and factor it into [its] total calculations.”  Pisel v. Stamford Hospital, 180 Conn. 314, 344, 430 A.2d 1 (1980).   As for the plaintiff's argument that the jury either ignored or did not understand the law that was given to it, there is a presumption that the jury's action was not a mistake and it did “exactly what it intended to do.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Sigular v. Gilson, supra, 141 Conn.App. 593.  “In the absence of interrogatories concerning this award, the [movant] engages in speculation about what the jury did ․ [T]he court cannot premise its decision on what the jury may have done.  ‘We cannot speculate as to how the jury reached its figure.’  ․ Barrows v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 58 Conn.App. 225, 229, 753 A.2d 404, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 925, 761 A.2d 751 (2000).”   Guay v. Darden, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV 03 0824755 (September 7, 2004, Shapiro, J.) (37 Conn. L. Rptr. 837, 839).

Thus, there is no evidence that the verdict is excessive, exorbitant or unreasonable, or that the jury did not understand or ignored the law.   Without interrogatories the court cannot know how the jury reached each amount that it awarded and cannot make a decision based on speculation.   Therefore, the motion to set aside the verdict and the motion for new trial must be denied.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion to set aside verdict and motion for new trial (# 136) is denied.

Devine, J.

Devine, James J., J.