Karla Corridino v. Tiberius Kovacs et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On December 7, 2011, the plaintiff's husband, Nicholas Corridino, was traveling northbound on Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, CT, when the vehicle he was driving was struck by the defendant, Tiberius Kovacs, operating a vehicle owned by the defendant, Maria Kovacs, when the Kovacs vehicle entered Wolcott Hill Road from Fairview Drive and struck the left rear of the vehicle being operated by Nicholas Corridino.   At a hearing held on October 1, 2013, before this Court, Nicholas Corridino testified to the foregoing without any contrary testimony, therefore, establishing that the defendants were liable for the damage to the plaintiff's vehicle, a 2011 Hyundai four-door sedan, which is the subject of this suit.

Plaintiff then presented an expert witness, Robert Collins, whom the Court qualified as an expert witness as to market value of automobiles, damage value of automobiles and diminished values of automobiles.   The plaintiff did not seek in this matter, the cost of repairs of her vehicle but instead claimed that the value of her vehicle was diminished.   This is supported by caselaw.   For example, “So, our rule is that when injury is less than a complete loss the measure of damages is the difference in value between the property before and after the loss with interest from the date of loss.”  Littlejohn v. Elionsky, 130 Conn. 541, 543 (1944).   For the same result also see Stultz v. Palmer, 141 Conn. 709 (1954) and Hammarlund v. Troiano, 146 Conn. 470 (1959).   Mr. Collins testified as to the diminished value of the Hyundai owned by the plaintiff as a result of the above-mentioned motor vehicle accident.

The witnesses who testified are the plaintiff, owner of the Hyundai, Karla Corridino, the driver of said vehicle, Nicholas Corridino, and Mr. Collins.   Other than cross examination, the defense presented no evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The plaintiffs in a civil case and defendants in their Special Defenses, sustain their burden of proof as to any essential element in their cause of action if the evidence, considered fairly and impartially, induces in the mind of the trier, a reasonable belief that it is more probable than otherwise that the facts involved in that element are true.”  Busker v. United Illuminating Co., 156 Conn. 456, 458 (1968).   This is also known as proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

In addition, this Court evaluates the credibility of the witnesses based upon their appearance and demeanor on the witness stand, the consistency or inconsistency of their testimony, their memory or lack thereof of certain events, whether they were candid and forthright or evasive and incomplete, their manner in responding to questions and their interest or lack of interest in the case as well as the exhibits in the case.

Also, the Court evaluates general credibility on the basis of other testimony in the case, as well as documents in evidence as to their consistency or inconsistency with other evidence.

The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their allegations by a preponderance of evidence.

ISSUES AND FINDINGS

1. Are the defendants liable to the plaintiff for the diminished value of her vehicle as a result of the subject accident?

The short answer is yes.

The Court found Mr. Collins, the expert witness, credible, and accepts his opinion as to the diminished value of said vehicle.   As noted in his Inspection and Evaluation Report, being plaintiff's exhibit 3, he found the value of the vehicle prior to the accident at $26,874, the damage severity at 53% with a “Severe” rating.   He found the post-repair value of the vehicle at $19,349, resulting in a diminished value of $7,525, one of his main conclusions being that the value of the vehicle became sharply diminished because of its now history of being in an accident and suffering damage.

Accordingly, the Court finds the diminished value for which the defendants are liable to the plaintiff at $7,525, in order to put the plaintiff in the position she was before the accident occurred.

CONCLUSION

Judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $7,525 plus expert witness fees of $600, being $300 for the report and $300 for the expert's testimony.   Interest is assessed at the statutory rate of 10% per annum from the date of loss, December 7, 2011, in the amount of $1,380.

Judgment for the plaintiff is so ordered.

Rittenband, J.T.R.

Rittenband, Richard M., J.T.R.