188 Conn. App. 380
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- On January 19, 2014, tenant Ussbasy Garcia fell on the exterior rear stairs of defendants Robert and Diane Cohen’s rental property and suffered serious leg/ankle injuries.
- Garcia sued (common-law negligence; housing code counts later withdrawn), alleging defendants failed to keep the stairs free of dirt/sand, allowed steps to become pitted/worn/uneven, and failed to warn.
- Defendants denied negligence and asserted special defenses alleging Garcia’s comparative negligence (failed to watch where she was stepping, etc.).
- At trial Garcia submitted a requested jury charge (including that the possessor has a nondelegable duty to maintain premises) and proposed interrogatories; the trial court declined the nondelegable-duty charge and did not submit the interrogatories.
- The jury returned a general verdict for the defendants; Garcia moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which the court denied. Garcia appealed, arguing error in refusing the nondelegable-duty instruction and in not submitting interrogatories.
- The appellate court concluded the general verdict rule barred review because the record does not disclose whether the jury found defendants not negligent or found Garcia more than 50% negligent; Garcia had not preserved an objection to the court’s failure to submit interrogatories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by refusing to instruct jury that a possessor of real property has a nondelegable duty to maintain premises | Garcia: Court should have charged that Cohen had a nondelegable duty and could not escape liability by contracting maintenance out | Cohen: No evidence others were responsible for stair maintenance; nondelegable-duty charge unnecessary given other invitee-duty instructions | Court: Review barred by general verdict rule; even if instruction refusal arguable error, record silent on basis of verdict so claim not reviewable |
| Whether failure to submit plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories permits appellate review of claimed instructional error | Garcia: She requested interrogatories that would reveal basis for the verdict | Cohen: Interrogatories were unnecessary and were not submitted; absence of submitted interrogatories invokes general verdict presumptions | Court: Plaintiff failed to object when court declined to submit interrogatories; that failure is equivalent to not requesting them; thus no basis to discard general verdict presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Burns, 225 Conn. 782 (1993) (discusses application of general verdict rule)
- Tetreault v. Eslick, 271 Conn. 466 (2004) (defines situations where general verdict rule applies)
- Beckenstein Enterprises–Prestige Park, LLC v. Keller, 115 Conn. App. 680 (2009) (explains presumptions when jury returns general verdict and interrogatories are absent)
- Turturino v. Hurley, 98 Conn. App. 259 (2006) (applies general verdict rule where complaint denied and special defense pled)
- Malaguit v. Ski Sundown, Inc., 136 Conn. App. 381 (2012) (failure to object to deliberation without interrogatories is equivalent to failing to request them)