Autry v. Hosey, 200 Conn.App. 795

Background

On October 20, 2015, Autry was struck by Officer Hosey’s police cruiser while crossing Chapel Street in New Haven; she had "cut the corner" and was about five feet west of the marked crosswalk.
The officer was turning left from High Street into Chapel Street, moving from a sunny area into a shaded area; both parties testified and the court found both credible.
The court apportioned fault 65% to the defendant officer/city and 35% to Autry.
The court awarded full economic damages of $6,364.83 (medical costs and lost wages) and $30,000 in noneconomic damages for pain and suffering.
In awarding $30,000, the trial court stated its view that pedestrians struck by vehicles generally suffer greater emotional trauma than drivers or passengers; that factual premise played a significant role in the noneconomic award.
Defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court’s finding about "generally greater" pedestrian emotional trauma lacked evidentiary support and was not a matter of common knowledge; the appellate court reversed only the noneconomic damages and remanded for a new damages hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had evidence to find pedestrians suffer greater emotional trauma than vehicle occupants	Autry relied on her credible testimony of immediate pain and crying and argued emotional trauma is part of pain and suffering	Defendants argued there was no evidence or expert proof to support the generalized finding about greater pedestrian emotional trauma	Reversed: no evidence in the record supports the generalized factual finding; it is clearly erroneous
Whether the finding was a proper matter of common knowledge (judicial notice)	Autry suggested emotional trauma is encompassed by subjective complaints of pain and suffering	Defendants contended such a comparative medical/psychological conclusion is not within ordinary knowledge and requires evidence	Held not common knowledge; determination is subject to medical verification and beyond ordinary judicial knowledge
Whether expert testimony was required or otherwise available to support the finding	Autry argued expert testimony is not required to recover for mental suffering when supported by subjective complaints	Defendants argued medical/scientific proof would be necessary for a generalized comparative conclusion relied on by the court	Court noted expert testimony not always required for individual mental suffering but held that the specific generalized comparison invited medical proof and exceeded ordinary knowledge
Whether the erroneous finding was harmless and whether remand was necessary	Autry argued subjective evidence of pain sufficed and error was harmless	Defendants argued the trial court explicitly relied on the erroneous premise in setting noneconomic damages	Held error was not harmless; because the court indicated the comparison was important to the award, remand for a new damages hearing was required

Key Cases Cited

Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, 275 Conn. 105 (2005) (standard for when a factual finding is clearly erroneous)
Rivera v. Double A Transportation, Inc., 248 Conn. 21 (1999) (recognizing medical science can reliably address causes of mental trauma)
Franchey v. Hannes, 155 Conn. 663 (1967) (expert testimony required when issue goes beyond ordinary knowledge)
Sickmund v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 375 (1937) (effects of injuries on human system not within common knowledge)
Osborn v. Waterbury, 197 Conn. App. 476 (2020) (harmless-error analysis for mixed supported/unsupported factual findings)
Iino v. Spalter, 192 Conn. App. 421 (2019) (mental suffering may be proven by plaintiff’s subjective complaints)
Commissioner of Transportation v. Bakery Place Ltd. Partnership, 83 Conn. App. 343 (2004) (judicial notice and common-knowledge limits)
State v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365 (1966) (court may declare facts true without evidence only when within common knowledge)