PPA v. City of Bridgeport et al. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff instituted the present action seeking monetary damages on behalf of her minor daughter, age fourteen, as a result of an incident which occurred at the Harding high school in Bridgeport Connecticut in January 2008.   The minor plaintiff testified that she was located in a mediation room at the high school when the defendant Charles Bentley entered the room and slapped her with a full hand very hard on the side of her face.   The minor plaintiff called her mother who then went to the school to file a complaint and wanted Mr. Bentley to be arrested which was not done.   The plaintiff instituted the present action seeking monetary damages from the Bridgeport Board of Education, the Superintendent of Schools, and Mr. Bentley.

Harding high school has a mediation program in which conflicts between students are subject to a mediation program where the conflicts can be discussed and thereby not escalated.   The minor plaintiff was subject to the mediation program and went to the mediation room for that purpose.   Mr. Bentley was the Dean discipline and a very well-known basketball coach at the Harding high school.   He entered in the mediation room but not for that purpose.   When he saw the minor plaintiff, he believed her to be a sister of one of his basketball players.   With his two fingers he tapped her jokingly and lightly on side of the cheek and stated:  “I do not want to see you here again.”   Aside from the minor plaintiff, there were three people in room (Mr. Bentley, another young lady, and the mediator).   The three individuals, other than the minor plaintiff, describe the incident in various ways including laughing, horseplay, playing around, joking, friendly, playful, and with giggles.

The plaintiff sought damages on four theories of recovery:  assault;  battery;  intentional infliction of emotional distress;  and negligent infliction of emotional distress.   Without objection from the plaintiff, the Court directed a verdict in favor of the Bridgeport Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools.   The case was submitted to the jury as to Mr. Bentley under the four theories asserted by the plaintiff.   The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant Mr. Bentley.   The plaintiff has now moved to set aside that verdict.   No exceptions were taken by either party to the instructions of the court with respect to the four theories of recovery asserted by the plaintiff and no claim is made with respect to those instructions.

“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.   The amount of damages to be awarded is a matter particularly within the scope of the jury.”  Hunte v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 68 Conn.App. 534, 541–41 (2002).  “A jury is not obligated to believe that every injury causes pain or the pain alleged ․ 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).

Our courts have determined that there is no per se rule that an award of some economic damages requires an award of economic damages.   Indeed the court has stated that such situations must be determined on a case by case analysis.   Schroeder v. Triangulum Associates, 259 Conn. 325, 230 (2002);  Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174, 188 (2000);  see also Gambardella v. Feldman, 294 Conn. 482 (2010) (C.L.J. Jan. 19, 2010).  “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 of the jury made a mistake, but rather, on the supposition that the jury did exactly what it intended to do.”   Wichers v. Hatch, supra, 188–89;  see also such cases as Silva v. Walgreen, 120 Conn.App. 544 (2010);  Smith v. Lefebre, 92 Conn.App. 417 (2005);  Schettino v. Labarba, 82 Conn.App. 445 (2004).

There was ample evidence for the jury to conclude:  (1) that no assault occurred because there was no imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact;  (2) that no battery occurred because there was no harmful or offensive contact;  (3) there was no intentional infliction of emotional distress because the conduct was not extreme or outrageous;  and (4) there was no negligent emotional distress because there was no risk of causing emotional distress.

Accordingly, the motion to set aside the verdict is hereby denied.

RUSH, J.T.R.

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