154 Conn.App. 564
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Kathleen Bligh sued Travelers for underinsured motorist benefits after a 2008 rear-end collision; jury returned a $77,000 verdict, later reduced by setoff to $27,000 judgment.
- Plaintiff sought additur arguing the jury awarded only half of past medical bills and far less than claimed future medical costs; she also sought higher noneconomic damages.
- Evidence included medical testimony tying chronic back pain and need for repeated epidural injections to the 2008 collision, but defendant introduced evidence of a prior 2007 collision and other facts suggesting preexisting or exaggerated conditions.
- At trial the plaintiff introduced her pediatrician’s file; the defense relied on portions of that file (a March 2007 entry noting neck and back pain).
- The court made multiple evidentiary rulings (admitted the pediatric records, permitted testimony about the 2007 collision, allowed a Progressive agent to testify during plaintiff’s case due to scheduling, admitted a damage estimate report, and allowed portions of a deposition to be read).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of additur | Jury undercompensated; medical bills and future care proved and should be added | Jury lawfully discounted some claimed bills/treatment; verdict within reasonable range | Denial affirmed: verdict was within fair and reasonable limits; court did not abuse discretion |
| Admission of pediatric medical records | Wholesale admission violated privacy and was prejudicial | Plaintiff opened the door by asking witness to review the records and publish them | Waiver found; admission not reversible error |
| Admission of evidence about 2007 collision | Prior collision irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to damages | Prior collision relevant to causation and preexisting conditions; plaintiff’s complaint put health history at issue | Denial of preclusion affirmed: evidence relevant and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Allowing Progressive agent (Souza) to testify during plaintiff’s case | Late disclosure and surprise prejudiced plaintiff | Plaintiff delayed disclosure of vehicle-damage info; scheduling conflict justified timing | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no undue prejudice |
| Reading portions of Tompkins deposition | Reading violated preclusion order / caused prejudice | Plaintiff did not preserve objection at trial; deposition was redacted and limited | Claim not reviewable on appeal for lack of preservation |
| Admission of damage estimate report | Report was only an estimate and inspection was limited | Report documented visible damage promptly and was probative; limitations go to weight | Admission was proper; cross-examination addressed inspection limits |
| Sustaining objection to plaintiff counsel’s closing remark about being "offended" | Ruling chilled counsel and was prejudicial | Personal feelings of counsel are improper argument | Sustained properly: counsel’s personal feelings inadmissible; ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ng v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 122 Conn. App. 533 (abuse of discretion standard for additur/review of trial court denial)
- Silva v. Walgreen Co., 120 Conn. App. 544 (standard for setting aside verdict and additur analysis)
- Jacobs v. General Electric Co., 275 Conn. 395 (trial court evidentiary rulings entitled to great deference)
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 232 Conn. 666 (personal attacks and improper argument by counsel)