Arnold v. Moriarty
2013 WL 535795
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- On Oct 3, 2003, Arnold and Moriarty were involved in a rear-end collision after a middle-lane car merged into the right lane; both believed there was only minor damage and did not call police.
- Plaintiff filed on Oct 11, 2005, alleging negligence caused cervical and thoracic sprains and other injuries, pleading only bodily injury.
- Before trial, Arnold had prior back injuries from 1981 accident, a 1991 fall that damaged his lower back, and preexisting lumbar issues; after the accident he experienced pancreatitis and a gunshot wound.
- On Sept 16, 2011 the court granted a directed verdict as to counts 2–5; on Sept 20, 2011 the jury returned a verdict for Arnold on count 1 but awarded zero damages.
- The court instructed the jury to reconsider and then directed them to complete the defendant’s verdict form after the jury asked whether to award plaintiff or defendant; Arnold moved to set aside the verdict, which the court denied; Arnold appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court improperly directed a verdict for the defendant | Arnold argues the initial zero-damages verdict was ambiguous and the court should not have directed based on ambiguity | Moriarty contends the court correctly instructed based on the jury’s inability to prove damages | No directed verdict; court properly instructed and entered judgment aligned with the verdict |
| Whether the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict was proper | Arnold claims the jury could not have reasonably found zero damages | Moriarty argues the verdict was intelligible and supported by evidence | Affirmed; court did not abuse discretion in denying the motion to set aside |
Key Cases Cited
- Right v. Breen, 277 Conn. 364 (2006) (remanding when plaintiff failed to prove damages; ambiguity of damages verdicts)
- Ferris v. Hotel Pick Arms, Inc., 147 Conn. 72 (1959) (ambiguity/consistent verdict guidance; reinstruct and reconsider)
- Mierzejewski v. Brownell, 102 Conn. App. 413 (2007) (trier may credit or reject testimony; partial proof possible)
- Carano v. Moomey, 51 Conn. App. 382 (1998) (negligence requires proof of each element; partial proof may yield defendant’s verdict)
- Macy v. Lucas, 72 Conn. App. 142 (2002) (plaintiff may prove some elements while failing others; defendant’s verdict may be proper)
- Hall v. Bergman, 296 Conn. 169 (2010) (trial court cannot rely on original verdict forms when deciding on a motion to set aside verdict)