DeEsso v. Litzie
163 A.3d 55
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- At a youth basketball game a melee occurred between plaintiff Mitchell DeEsso and defendant Robert Litzie Jr.; plaintiff fell, felt a "pop" in his right shoulder, and was later diagnosed with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear requiring surgery and PT.
- Plaintiff claimed $61,483.34 in uncontested economic damages ($49,483.34 medical; $12,000 lost wages) and $297,360 in noneconomic damages for past and future pain and suffering.
- Defendant denied causation, contending others were involved in restraining/pulling the plaintiff during the melee; he did not contest the reasonableness of billed amounts but contested that his conduct proximately caused the rotator cuff tear.
- The jury returned a general verdict: $5,000 economic damages and $0 noneconomic damages; it explicitly found no proximately caused noneconomic damages.
- Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict or for additur (or a new trial), arguing the $5,000 economic award was inconsistent with uncontested bills and that awarding economic but no noneconomic damages was internally inconsistent.
- Trial court denied the motions; the Appellate Court affirmed, applying deferential review and reasoning that conflicting evidence on causation and the general verdict prevented setting aside or increasing the awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $5,000 economic award was legally inadequate / whether additur was required | DeEsso: Uncontested medical bills and lost wages totaled $61,483.34, so $5,000 is palpably unjust and requires additur or new trial | Litzie: Causation was disputed; jury could credit that defendant caused only some injury-related costs or none of the major expenses | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; general verdict and contested causation provide reasonable basis for the $5,000 award; court will not speculate how jury allocated damages |
| Whether awarding economic damages but zero noneconomic damages was inconsistent | DeEsso: Awarding some economic damages but no noneconomic damages is internally inconsistent and inadequate | Litzie: Jury could have found he did not cause the painful injury (rotator cuff); thus no noneconomic damages attributable to defendant | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; under Wichers court reviews case-by-case and jury reasonably could have found no proximately caused noneconomic harm given its causation findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (2000) (trial courts must test verdicts awarding economic but no noneconomic damages on the particular record rather than deeming them per se inadequate)
- Barrows v. J.C. Penney Co., 58 Conn. App. 225 (2000) (where jury returns a general verdict, courts should not speculate about how jury apportioned uncontested medical bills)
- Beverly v. State, 44 Conn. App. 641 (1997) (standard of review for trial court refusal to set aside verdict or order additur: deferential; verdict must not shock the sense of justice)
- Esaw v. Friedman, 217 Conn. 553 (1991) (jury may award less than full claimed damages where evidence supports that some injuries were not caused by the defendant)