335 Conn. 3
Conn.2020Background
- Plaintiff slipped on an exterior apartment staircase, injuring her ankle; she alleged the landlords (Robert and Diane Cohen) negligently failed to keep steps free of dirt/sand and to repair worn, pitted steps.
- Robert Cohen testified that he used a crew to remove snow and to spread salt and sand, and that no one returned later to clear the sand.
- Plaintiff requested a jury instruction on landlords’ nondelegable duty and submitted three interrogatories aimed at isolating (1) defendants’ negligence in failing to keep steps clear, (2) defendants’ negligence in allowing steps to be worn/uneven, and (3) plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
- The trial court declined to give the nondelegable-duty instruction and refused to submit the interrogatories; after the charge plaintiff’s counsel said only, “Other than what I had filed previously, no.” The jury returned a defense verdict.
- The Appellate Court held the general verdict rule barred review because plaintiff had not objected to denial of interrogatories and had not raised an independent claim about their denial; the Supreme Court reversed, ruling plaintiff preserved review and the interrogatories were properly framed and intertwined with the nondelegable-duty issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the general verdict rule bars appellate review where the trial court denied proposed interrogatories and plaintiff did not say the exact words “I object” on the record | Garcia preserved her objection by filing interrogatories, eliciting the court’s reasons on the record, and renewing the objection after the charge | Failure to use the talismanic words or to formally object equals failure to preserve; thus general verdict rule applies | Court held plaintiff preserved the objection; the record showed reasonable efforts to avoid the rule, so the general verdict rule did not bar review |
| Whether the proposed interrogatories were properly framed to avoid the general verdict rule | Interrogatories focused on negligence and contributory negligence and thus would have disclosed the basis for the verdict | Interrogatories were deficient because they did not separately cover every factual specification of the contributory-negligence defense | Court held interrogatories were properly framed; one question on plaintiff’s reasonable care encompassed the factual specifications and would have shed light on the verdict |
| Whether plaintiff was required on appeal to assert an independent claim of error about the trial court’s refusal to submit interrogatories | Submission of interrogatories and on-the-record objection function as a defense against the general verdict rule; no separate appellate claim was required | Plaintiff should have separately argued the denial of interrogatories on appeal | Court held no independent claim was required; plaintiff had made every reasonable effort to protect the record, so her instructional claim remained reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Burns, 225 Conn. 782 (1993) (limits and clarifies application of the general verdict rule; enumerates scenarios when it applies)
- Pedersen v. Vahidy, 209 Conn. 510 (1988) (party who requests interrogatories and preserves objection need not separately claim their denial to avoid the general verdict rule)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726 (2018) (general verdict rule bars review of instructional error where jury could have decided on an unchallenged ground and requested interrogatories did not clarify grounds)
- Perez v. Cumba, 138 Conn. App. 351 (2012) (refusal to submit properly framed interrogatories can remove the bar of the general verdict rule when interrogatories would have revealed the jury’s ground)
- Beckenstein Enterprises–Prestige Park, LLC v. Keller, 115 Conn. App. 680 (2009) (instructional error review not barred where the charge would have affected multiple bases of the jury’s verdict)
- Malaguit v. Ski Sundown, Inc., 136 Conn. App. 381 (2012) (distinguishes cases where parties failed to object to deliberation without interrogatories)
- Smith v. Greenwich, 278 Conn. 428 (2006) (describes nondelegable duty doctrine applicable to parties in control of premises)