331 Conn. 777
Conn.2019Background
- Decedent William Ashmore underwent elective heart surgery at Hartford Hospital; epicardial pacing wires were placed but hospital staff failed to use them when he deteriorated postoperatively, causing 17 minutes without a heartbeat, severe anoxic injury, and eventual life-support termination.
- Plaintiff Marjorie Ashmore sued in her capacity as administratrix for wrongful death (on behalf of the estate) and individually for loss of spousal consortium; jury returned verdicts: estate noneconomic damages $1.2M (plus ~$75k economic) and plaintiff $4.5M for loss of consortium.
- Hartford Hospital moved for remittitur of the consortium award; trial court denied the motion and entered judgment on the verdicts.
- On appeal, the hospital argued (1) remittitur review should be de novo as a legal question, and (2) a loss-of-consortium award presumptively should not substantially exceed the wrongful-death noneconomic award to the injured spouse absent unusual circumstances.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court preserved the abuse-of-discretion standard for remittitur challenges but treated the question whether consortium awards presumptively may not exceed the underlying wrongful-death award as a legal issue subject to plenary review.
- The court concluded the $4.5M consortium award, nearly four times the $1.2M wrongful-death noneconomic award, lacked evidentiary support for such disparity and remanded for reconsideration of remittitur under the articulated presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of appellate review for remittitur | Remittitur denials reviewed for abuse of discretion | Argued statute language requires de novo review | Court retained abuse-of-discretion standard generally but reviews pure legal issues (like the presumption) plenarily |
| Whether a legal presumption exists limiting consortium awards relative to wrongful-death awards | No categorical limit; jury can award based on spouse’s unique loss | A consortium award presumptively should not substantially exceed the injured spouse’s noneconomic award absent unusual evidence | Court adopts a presumption that consortium awards ordinarily should not substantially exceed the corresponding wrongful-death noneconomic award, rebuttable by evidence of unusual circumstances |
| Application to the Ashmore verdict: was $4.5M consortium justified | Plaintiff: her postmortem losses (household services, companionship, financial impact, trauma of terminating life support) justify larger award | Defendant: disparity irrational; many claimed losses overlap with estate award or are not recoverable as consortium; no quantifying evidence | Court: evidence was scant and largely conclusory; noneconomic estate award encompassed many losses; trauma of ending life support is not properly part of consortium (more akin to bystander emotional distress); remand for reconsideration/remittitur |
| Proper remedy on remand if jury misallocated damages | Plaintiff: no specific position preserved on additur | Defendant: remittitur appropriate; if jury misallocated, additur to estate may be proper | Court remanded for trial court to reconsider remittitur; noted that if reallocation occurred, additur by estate could be considered though not decided here |
Key Cases Cited
- Munn v. Hotchkiss School, 326 Conn. 540 (Conn. 2017) (remittitur jurisprudence and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 303 Conn. 276 (Conn. 2011) (review standards for remittitur and trial court discretion)
- Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital, 176 Conn. 485 (Conn. 1979) (recognition and limits of spousal loss-of-consortium claim)
- Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509 (Conn. 1989) (scrutiny of outsized consortium awards relative to underlying award)
- Earlington v. Anastasi, 293 Conn. 194 (Conn. 2009) (court has ordered remittitur where record fails to support award)
- Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (Conn. 2000) (statutory codification did not alter remittitur standards)
- Seals v. Hickey, 186 Conn. 337 (Conn. 1982) (constitutional constraints on unfettered remittitur authority)