200 Conn.App. 82
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Long-running neighbor dispute: Cloutier (defendant) installed rear-facing security cameras after vandalism; John and Alison Borg (plaintiffs) objected.
- Plaintiffs installed bright floodlights aimed toward Cloutier’s home; Cloutier complained repeatedly without resolution.
- A website surfaced accusing Cloutier of being associated with child pornography; site content tied circumstantially to John Borg.
- Trial: jury found for Cloutier on her counterclaims (private nuisance, intrusion/seclusion, defamation, false light), awarded substantial noneconomic damages, and found plaintiffs’ conduct reckless/with actual malice; court awarded $32,600 in punitive damages and issued a permanent injunction (including removal of the web content).
- Trial court later held plaintiffs (and John Borg individually) in contempt for violating the injunction. Plaintiffs appealed multiple rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of juror-misconduct inquiry | Court should have held evidentiary hearing into a dismissed juror’s remark about John Borg | Court’s limited inquiry and curative instruction were sufficient; plaintiffs consented to procedure | Waived by plaintiffs; even on merits, court did not abuse discretion — inquiry was sufficient |
| Alison Borg liability for private nuisance & recklessness | Alison had no active role; liability was mere association; light not reckless | Circumstantial evidence showed Alison had control/acquiescence and knowledge, supporting recklessness | Sufficient evidence; jury could infer control and recklessness; verdict stands |
| John Borg — defamation, false light, and actual malice | Insufficient evidence linking John to website and no proof of malice | Forensic and circumstantial evidence tied John to domain registration/payments and motive; hostility supports malice | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to support defamation, false light, and actual malice findings |
| Double recovery / duplicative damages | Awards for defamation and false light (each $250k) duplicate recovery for same publication | Different torts protect different interests; jury intended net damages answers | Awards for defamation and false light were duplicative for the same publication; trial court abused discretion as to duplicative pair |
| Punitive damages procedure and quantum | Court should have held evidentiary hearing on fees and let jury decide amount | Parties agreed pretrial to bifurcate liability (jury) and amount (judge); judge may use own knowledge and affidavit | No abuse: parties agreed to bifurcation; judge properly exercised discretion and reasonably fixed amount |
| Permanent injunction re: website | Monetary damages were adequate; injunction unnecessary | Monetary relief was inadequate because the site remained live and self-help was uncertain; injunction tailored to remove content | Injunction proper: irreparable harm and inadequate legal remedy proven; injunction affirmed |
| Contempt re: website order | John lacked control/ownership; he tried contacting registrant, so not wilful | Burden on contemnor to prove inability; record showed John failed to prove inability and did not comply | Order was clear; John failed to prove inability — contempt finding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88 (2008) (trial-court duty to preliminarily inquire when presented with possible juror bias)
- State v. Osimanti, 111 Conn. App. 700 (2008) (party asserting juror bias bears burden to prove existence and prejudice)
- Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107 (1982) (elements and standards for false light invasion of privacy)
- Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 211 Conn. 67 (1989) (rule against duplicate recoveries for the same injury)
- Iino v. Spalter, 192 Conn. App. 421 (2019) (discussing when punitive-damages amount must be submitted to jury absent bifurcation agreement)
- Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc., 291 Conn. 620 (2009) (definition of actual malice for defamation)