129 Conn. App. 807
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Crews II appeals from a jury verdict for Lime Rock Associates following a trial stemming from a July 2004 motorcycle accident at Lime Rock Park during an IMSA event.
- Plaintiff signed multiple IMSA documents including a Release and Waiver of Liability (waiver) before the incident, which purportedly barred claims.
- Plaintiff’s motorbike accident occurred after he attempted to avoid a departing vehicle; no contact with the other vehicle was proven.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant negligence in managing pit-road operations and that Pudlinski (an employee) was negligent; defendant asserted vicarious liability and two defenses: plaintiff’s contributory negligence and waiver enforceability.
- Jury returned a verdict for the defendant; plaintiff moved to set aside verdict; court denied; on appeal, the waiver’s admissibility and enforceability were argued under the general verdict rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the waiver was improperly admitted into evidence | Crews contends waiver’s admission taints the verdict | Waiver proper under IMSA regime and admissible | General verdict rule bars review; waiver admission not reversible on its own |
| Whether the waiver is unenforceable as against public policy | Waiver violates public policy and contract law | Waiver valid where explicitly signed | Waiver enforceable under governing doctrine |
| Whether damages can exceed against principal when only vicarious liability is at issue | Plaintiff may recover more from principal than agent | No greater damages against principal than agent | Not addressed separately due to general verdict rule; review barred |
| Whether settlement with the employee releases the employer | Settlement did not release employer | Settlement with employee could release employer if applicable | Under general verdict rule, cannot disturb basis of verdict on this issue |
| Whether withdrawal of claims against Pudlinski affected release against daughter and vicarious liability | Withdrawal did not release daughter or vicarious liability | Withdrawal may affect releases depending on scope | General verdict rule precludes separate review of this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckenstein Enterprises-Prestige Park, LLC v. Keller, 115 Conn.App. 680 (2009) (general verdict considerations; record supports verdict despite interrogatories)
- Fabrizio v. Glaser, 38 Conn.App. 458 (1995) (order and emphasis of instructions do not dictate the verdict)
- Eagar v. Barron, 2 Conn. App. 468 (1984) (courts will not delve into jurors’ minds to determine basis of verdict)