157 Conn.App. 201
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Decedent Brian Haskell died June 25, 2007 from ventricular tachycardia while exercising at home.
- ER on April 5, 2007 noted prior fainting with running; physician advised against physical exertion.
- April 16–20, 2007 Hospital of St. Raphael testing; defibrillator implanted April 20, 2007.
- Defendant Blitzer (cardiologist) treated IVT vs CPVT; started Toprol and later other meds.
- Medical records lacked written limitations on exercise despite notes and later physician discussions.
- Plaintiff Amy Champeau, administrator, sued in 2009; trial held 2013; verdict for defendants.
- Court found error in jury interrogatories and proximate cause instructions; reversed and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the interrogatory legally correct and material to the verdict? | Interrogatory was legally incorrect and misled the jury. | Interrogatories conformed to the charge; any error was harmless. | Reversible error; remand for new trial. |
| Did the causation instructions mislead the jury about proximate cause? | Jury charge misled by proximate cause misstatement. | Charge followed accepted standards; no reversible error. | Reversible error; remand for new trial. |
| Should the court have preserved the error despite trial objections? | Objections and written requests preserved the issue. | Waiver arguments insufficient. | Preservation satisfied; reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barksdale v. Harris, 30 Conn. App. 754 (1993) (conflicting proximate cause terms misled jury; remand for new trial)
- Phelps v. Lankes, 74 Conn. App. 597 (2003) (single improper instruction not fatal; charge overall not improper (distinguishing this case))
- Willametz v. Guida-Seibert Dairy Co., 157 Conn. 295 (1968) (interrogatories test verdict; primary purpose is material-fact testing)
- Lin v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 277 Conn. 1 (2006) (preservation requirement for instructional error; written request or exception required)
- Sola v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 152 Conn. App. 732 (2014) (abuse of discretion and harm required for reversible error)