Johnson v. Pike
2012 WL 1990321
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- David Johnson sued for injuries from a December 3, 2006 automobile collision involving Daniel Pike's vehicle driven by Andrew Pike; liability admitted, damages tried to a jury.
- Jury awarded $34,222 in lost wages, $1,762 in medical bills, no future medical expenses, and $60,000 noneconomic damages, for a total award of $85,984.
- Defendants moved for remittitur and to set aside the verdict or grant a new trial, contending noneconomic damages and lost wages were excessive and challenging admissibility of certain exhibits.
- Trial court denied remittitur and new-trial motions, concluding the $60,000 noneconomic award did not shock the conscience and was within reasonable limits.
- On appeal, defendants challenge the court's handling of the remittitur/setting-aside denial and the evidentiary rulings; the court affirms, applying deference to the trial court's discretion.
- Record reveals trial used the plaintiff’s verdict form (no jury interrogatories) to itemize damages; exhibits 5–11 involved various letters, contracts, and a prepaid invoiced item contested as self-serving or hearsay; the record on some evidentiary rulings is deemed inadequate for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the noneconomic-damages remittitur was proper | Johnson’s pain and ongoing impact justify the award; trial court acted within its discretion. | $50,000 noneconomic damages are excessive and shock the sense of justice; remittitur or new trial warranted. | No abuse of discretion; award within the bounds of just damages. |
| Whether the verdict form's treatment of injuries undermines the noneconomic-damages award | Shoulder injury evidence is not dispositive; wrist issues and ongoing pain support damages. | Absence of post-April 2007 treatment suggests no shoulder injury; noneconomic damages excessive. | Verdict not shock the sense of justice; discretion to weigh conflicting evidence upheld. |
| Whether exhibits 5–11 were improperly admitted as hearsay or self-serving | Exhibits are business records or non-hearsay in form; probative of plaintiff’s damages and credibility. | Exhibits are self-serving, hearsay, and lacking foundation; admission prejudiced defense. | Record inadequate for review on several exhibits; some rulings affirmed or unreviewable; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 260 Conn. 747 (2002) (remittitur and abuse-of-discretion review framework)
- Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 303 Conn. 276 (2011) (deference to jury verdict; framework for whether verdict shocks justice)
- Johnson v. Chaves, 78 Conn. App. 342 (2003) (nonshock standard in noneconomic damages review)
- Thorsen v. Durkin Development, LLC, 129 Conn. App. 68 (2011) (traumatic damages appellate review principle)
- Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 116 Conn. App. 483 (2009) (limits of damages and review of verdicts)
- Black v. Goodwin, Loomis & Britton, Inc., 239 Conn. 144 (1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for remittitur decision)
- Oakes v. New England Dairies, Inc., 219 Conn. 1 (1991) (remittitur review and trial-court discretion)
- Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 Conn. App. 589 (2012) (appellate adoption of abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Sinert v. Olympia & York Development Co., 38 Conn. App. 844 (1995) (role of jury interrogatories and review of verdicts)
- Earlington v. Anastasi, 293 Conn. 194 (2009) (interplay between jury verdict and damages review)
- Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702 (1991) (functions and purposes of jury interrogatories)
- Deas v. Diaz, 121 Conn. App. 826 (2010) (standard of review for remittitur on appeal)