Maureen Scott v. Lisa Donovan (2016)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REMITTITUR

The defendant, Lisa Donovan, filed the above motion for remittitur pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 16–35 contending that the jury verdict is contrary to law, not supported by proof and contrary to the court's instructions.  The jury verdict of $206,953.53 consisting of economic damages in the amount of $41,953.53 and noneconomic damages in the amount of $165,000.00.  The jury attributed 10% responsibility to the plaintiff based upon comparative fault resulting in an award of $186,258.17.

The court concludes that the award is fair, just and reasonable and should not be reduced in that:

1) The plaintiff incurred $41,953.53 in economic damages for medical, surgical and hospital care with the total amount claimed awarded by the jury;

2) The fall left the plaintiff with a permanent injury to her left lower extremity stemming from the fall, serious fracture and surgery.  The jury heard testimony from the plaintiff and her daughter concerning the affect of the fall and subsequent disability had on her life, which was vigorously challenged by the defendant.  The jury also were told that the severity of the injury required her an admission to a rehabilitation facility for 3–4 weeks for further treatment with discharge requiring the use of a wheelchair, walker, etc.  The jury also heard about her present and future inability to run and play with her dog.  She testified that her left leg was in constant pain and that she walked with a permanent limp.  The court concludes that an award of 4 times the economic damages is not excessive and does not shock the sense of justice.  Tomczuck v. Alvarez, 184 Conn. 182, 185 (1981);  Harn v. Green, 248 Conn. 508, 536 (1999);

3) The jury verdict was returned in conformance with the unchallenged jury charge.  The court's power to order a remittitur should be exercised only when it is manifested that the jury has included items of damage which are contrary to law, and supported by proof or contrary to the judge's charge.  Harn v. Green, 188;  citing Rosenblatt v. Vernon, 143 Conn. 31, 37–38 (1955).

ORDER

The defendant's motion for remittitur is hereby denied.

Devine, J.

Devine, James J., J.