Drake v. Bingham
131 Conn. App. 701
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Drake, delivered August 23, 2003, with shoulder dystocia; defendant used McRoberts and suprapubic pressure then rotated the head to complete delivery, resulting in brachial plexus injury.
- Post-delivery, Drake diagnosed with nerve injuries and underwent neurology evaluation and surgery; avulsions found and scarring weakened arm muscles.
- Plaintiff filed May 5, 2008 complaint alleging negligence during delivery; trial occurred May 6–29, 2008 resulting in a verdict for defendant.
- Before trial, plaintiff sought to exclude evidence of missed physical therapy appointments; court denied in limine ruling.
- During trial, plaintiff introduced testimony and deposition from treating physicians linking missed therapy to potential outcomes; defense contends evidence bears on damages and causation.
- Court allowed the missed-therapy evidence, held that mitigation of damages was properly instructed but later reversed on the specific mitigation instruction issue and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting missed physical therapy evidence was proper | White argues evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Bingham argues evidence relates to damages/mitigation | Admissible; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether instruction on mitigation of damages was proper | Court abused by giving mitigation instruction without proper proximate-cause linkage | Mitigation evidence supported a charge under controlling law | Court did not err in instructing on mitigation of damages |
| Whether jury instruction on mitigation was legally correct | Charge failed to state that damages may be reduced only for aggravation caused by failure to mitigate | Instruction adequate under Preston framework | Judgment reversed for incorrect mitigation instruction and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchanan v. Moreno, 117 Conn. App. 732 (2009) (deference to evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 (2010) (evidence relevance defined; probative value balancing)
- Jancura v. Szwed, 176 Conn. 285 (1978) (duty to mitigate damages; causation link)
- Herrera v. Madrak, 58 Conn. App. 320 (2000) (mitigation evidence supports jury charge)
- Preston v. Keith, 217 Conn. 12 (1991) (relationship between proximate cause and mitigation; burden of proof)
- Morro v. Brockett, 109 Conn. 87 (1929) (proximate cause theory in mitigation context)
- Hallas v. Boehmke & Dobosz, Inc., 239 Conn. 658 (1997) (clarifies mitigating-damages instruction; jury understanding)