147 Conn. App. 198
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Bennett (plaintiff) was a tenant who fell on exterior stairs of property owned by Chenault (defendant) in Sept. 2007 and sued for negligence/premises liability.
- Bennett alleged defective stairs: short treads, uneven risers, worn roofing shingles on treads, and an ungraspable handrail.
- Chenault denied negligence and pleaded comparative negligence as a special defense.
- After trial, the jury returned a general verdict for Chenault; the trial court denied Bennett’s motions for a new trial and to set aside the verdict.
- Bennett appealed, raising multiple evidentiary errors, disputes over which building code applied, a requested negligence-per-se charge, and a claim the judge should have been disqualified for partiality.
- The appellate court affirmed, primarily applying the general verdict rule to preclude review of most evidentiary complaints and separately rejecting the judicial-bias claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of general verdict rule | General verdict rule should not apply because defendant’s pleading was only a basic denial and not a distinct special defense | Defendant properly pleaded comparative negligence as a special defense that could independently defeat recovery | Court held comparative negligence was a proper special defense; general verdict rule applies, so appellate review of evidentiary errors is precluded absent interrogatories |
| Review of trial evidentiary rulings (motion in limine, expert interrogation, exhibits, building code, negligence-per-se charge) | Various evidentiary and procedure errors prejudiced Bennett and warranted a new trial or setting aside the verdict | Any claimed evidentiary error is immaterial because the general verdict could have rested on either denial of negligence or the special defense | Court declined to review these claims under general verdict rule and affirmed judgment without addressing merits of evidentiary complaints |
| Judicial bias / motion to disqualify judge | Judge had a relationship to defendant (family connection) and may have visited property — grounds for disqualification and new trial | Any relationship was remote; judge’s disclosures showed no bias and no close consanguinity; judge’s partial recollection claims were speculative | Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and found no abuse; denied motion for new trial on bias grounds |
| Need for jury interrogatories to preserve claims | Bennett argues trial errors require reversal despite lack of interrogatories | Defendant points out absence of interrogatories means the verdict must be presumed to rest on any valid ground | Court reiterated that a party must use interrogatories to avoid general verdict consequences; absent them, presumption for defendant stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Tetreault v. Eslick, 271 Conn. 466 (explaining the general verdict rule and situations in which it applies)
- Curry v. Burns, 225 Conn. 782 (discussing distinctness of defenses for general verdict rule purposes)
- Barrows v. J.C. Penney Co., 58 Conn. App. 225 (distinguishing facts provable under general denial from those requiring special defenses)
- Ricciardi v. Burns, 21 Conn. App. 516 (special defense and denial both can support a general verdict)
- Diener v. Tiago, 80 Conn. App. 597 (application of general verdict rule precluding review of evidentiary error)
- Small v. Stop & Shop Cos., 42 Conn. App. 660 (judicial-bias claim considered separately from general verdict analysis)
- Malave v. Ortiz, 114 Conn. App. 414 (caution against frivolous judicial-bias claims)