Graham v. Commissioner of Transportation, 260 A.3d 1275

December 12, 2011 motor-vehicle accident on the Gold Star Memorial Bridge; plaintiff alleged black ice (a highway defect) caused the crash.
Earlier that morning (5:40 a.m.) a separate ice-related accident occurred; state police notified the DOT at 5:49 a.m.; plaintiff’s crash occurred at 6:38 a.m., before DOT crew arrival.
On remand from prior appeals, the sole factual issue for the jury was whether the DOT had a reasonable time to remedy the defect after notice.
Jury interrogatories included: whether DOT had a reasonable time to remedy the defect (answered “No”), and several other findings favorable to the plaintiff; the jury initially attempted to return a plaintiff’s verdict while answering that interrogatory “No.”
The trial court judged the verdict inconsistent with interrogatory No. 4, returned the jury for further deliberations with a brief supplemental instruction (no contemporaneous objection), and the jury quickly returned a defendant’s verdict; the court denied the motion to set aside and entered judgment for defendant.
On appeal the substitute plaintiff argued (1) the court abused its discretion by returning the jury to correct the inconsistency and (2) the court’s supplemental instruction was erroneous; the Appellate Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to accept the jury’s initial plaintiff’s verdict and returning the jury to resolve an inconsistency with interrogatory No. 4	Graham: The plaintiff’s verdict was supported by other interrogatory answers and the jury charge; interrogatory No. 4’s wording differed from the charge and should not defeat the plaintiff’s verdict	DOT: Interrogatory No. 4 expressly found DOT lacked reasonable time to remedy, which legally precludes liability; the initial verdict was inconsistent and the court properly returned the jury	Affirmed: Court properly returned jury because answer to interrogatory No. 4 (no reasonable time) was inconsistent with a plaintiff’s verdict; returning jury was within court’s discretion
Whether the trial court erred in the supplemental instruction (telling jury it had "made a mistake")	Graham: The court failed to identify its concern (interrogatory No. 4), leaving jury confused and coerced to switch to a defendant’s verdict	DOT: Court’s brief instruction cured the inconsistency; no timely objection was made and the instruction was permissible	Not reviewed on merits: Appellate Court declined to review because plaintiff failed to timely and distinctly preserve an objection to the specific language of the supplemental charge

Graham v. Commissioner of Transportation, 168 Conn. App. 570 (Conn. App. 2016) (remanded for jury determination on reasonableness of DOT’s response time)
Graham v. Commissioner of Transportation, 330 Conn. 400 (Conn. 2018) (Supreme Court remand clarifying sole factual issue was DOT’s response reasonableness)
Rendahl v. Peluso, 173 Conn. App. 66 (Conn. App. 2017) (standards for returning a jury to rectify verdict inconsistencies)
Bilodeau v. Bristol, 38 Conn. App. 447 (Conn. App. 1995) (trial court’s duty to harmonize inconsistent answers to interrogatories)
Mokonnen v. Pro Park, Inc., 113 Conn. App. 765 (Conn. App. 2009) (failure to object to interrogatories preserves their submission)
Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC, 193 Conn. App. 381 (Conn. App. 2019) (preservation rule: appellate review limited to issues distinctly raised at trial)
Szekeres v. Szekeres, 126 Conn. App. 829 (Conn. App. 2011) (claims unpreserved where party did not object to jury instructions or interrogatories)