Cusano v. Lajoie
176 A.3d 1228
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On July 4, 2014, the defendants’ vehicle rear-ended Cusano’s car; liability was not disputed. Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained about $678 in repairs.
- Plaintiff reported neck and upper back pain starting the day after the accident, saw chiropractor Awilda Figueroa five days later, and received 19 treatments over ~3 months; Figueroa’s final report (Jan. 2015) stated the plaintiff had returned to preinjury status.
- Plaintiff claimed $3,320 in medical expenses, $750 in lost wages, and noneconomic damages for pain and suffering.
- A jury initially awarded the full medical expenses but $0 for lost wages and $0 noneconomic damages; after the court queried the jury about possible inconsistency, the jury again returned $0 noneconomic damages.
- The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for additur, ordering $2,000 for noneconomic damages; defendants rejected the additur and appealed.
- The Appellate Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering additur without identifying record facts supporting that extraordinary relief and without explaining the $2,000 amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly ordered additur for noneconomic damages | Jury’s zero noneconomic award was inconsistent with awarding full medical expenses; additur correct | Jury could reasonably award economic damages and zero noneconomic damages based on credibility and conflicting evidence; court abused discretion | Reversed: additur improper — court failed to identify record facts or justify amount and ignored reasonable basis for jury’s verdict |
| Whether awarding medical expenses but no noneconomic damages is per se inconsistent | Medical treatment proves compensable pain; inconsistency requires correction | Such an award can be reasonable depending on evidence; not automatically inconsistent | Court may not assume treatment equals compensable pain; jury reasonably could find no noneconomic damages |
| Whether trial court adequately explained factual basis and amount for additur | Court’s conclusion that verdict was inconsistent justified additur and $2,000 amount | Trial court gave only conclusory statements, no record citations or explanation of calculation | Trial court abused discretion by failing to articulate facts supporting additur or explain the $2,000 figure |
| Standard for reviewing additur where credibility/conflicting evidence exists | Additur warranted when verdict shocks justice | Trial court must view evidence favorably to sustain jury and presume jury intended its verdict | Appellate court enforces Wichers: trial court must identify specific record facts justifying additur; conflicting evidence supports upholding jury verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (court must identify record facts before ordering additur; jury verdict must be presumed intended)
- Turner v. Pascarelli, 88 Conn. App. 720 (trial court must articulate factual basis for additur; conclusory reasoning insufficient)
- Smith v. Lefebre, 92 Conn. App. 417 (jury may reasonably award zero noneconomic damages where credibility/conflicts exist)
- DeEsso v. Litzie, 172 Conn. App. 787 (standard for when verdict shocks sense of justice versus reasonable award)
- Fileccia v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 92 Conn. App. 481 (award of economic damages without noneconomic damages can be inconsistent on some facts but not always)
- Schroeder v. Triangulum Associates, 259 Conn. 325 (same principle: full economic award with no noneconomic award may be permissible depending on facts)