181 Conn. App. 671
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Collision on May 10, 2013: defendant struck plaintiff's vehicle; plaintiff claimed cervical strain/sprain, permanent left hand impairment, and recurring severe headaches; incurred $7,325 in medical expenses.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence, statutory recklessness, and common-law recklessness; case tried to a jury in Nov. 2015.
- Jury found defendant 65% liable, awarded 65% of economic damages ($4,761.25) and $0 noneconomic damages; also found statutory violations with reckless disregard but denied double/treble damages.
- Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict or for an additur, arguing (1) the zero noneconomic award was inconsistent with interrogatory answers and inadequate as a matter of law, and (2) procedural irregularities during deliberations required a new trial.
- Trial court denied the motions; the appellate court affirmed, upholding the jury’s verdict and the court’s handling of post-deliberation matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury verdict awarding economic but zero noneconomic damages was inconsistent with jury interrogatories | Micalizzi: jury’s affirmative answer that statutory violations proximately caused “injuries sustained” implies compensable noneconomic harm, so verdict is inconsistent and must be set aside | Stewart: interrogatory about causation concerns liability, not automatic entitlement to noneconomic damages; jury could find causation but reject proof of pain/suffering | Court: No inconsistency — interrogatories read with jury instructions show separate findings on causation and damages; presume jury followed instructions |
| Whether awarding all claimed economic damages (including medical treatment for pain) requires a noneconomic award as a matter of law | Micalizzi: awarding full medical expenses for pain mandates an award for pain and suffering | Stewart: economic awards for treatment can reflect reasonable/necessary diagnostics or prophylaxis without proving compensable pain | Court: No per se rule; under Wichers inquiry, jury reasonably could award economic but not noneconomic damages given evidence and credibility findings |
| Whether specific facts here required noneconomic damages (fact-specific adequacy review) | Micalizzi: her testimony and treatments (medication, PT, imaging, permanent hand limitation, daily headaches) demanded noneconomic recovery | Stewart: plaintiff’s subjective complaints, failure to follow-up and improvement supported jury’s rejection of compensable pain | Court: Evidence supported jury’s conclusion that medical expenses were reasonable but plaintiff failed to prove compensable pain by preponderance; trial court reasonably deferred to jury credibility assessments |
| Whether procedural irregularities (handling of jury note, reinstruction, exhibit review, failure to poll) required new trial | Micalizzi: court didn’t accept technically correct verdict, failed to consult counsel sufficiently, allowed incomplete exhibits to go to jury, and discharged jury without polling parties | Stewart: court acted within discretion: adjourned after ambiguous note, reinstructed next day with counsel present, parties had opportunity to review exhibits, and no request to poll was timely made | Court: No abuse of discretion; procedures conformed to Practice Book and court’s managerial discretion; no demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (Conn.) (jury may award economic damages and zero noneconomic damages in appropriate circumstances; adequacy is fact-specific)
- Schroeder v. Triangulum Associates, 259 Conn. 325 (Conn.) (recognizes possibility that jury could award full economic but no noneconomic damages depending on facts)
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 242 Conn. 255 (Conn.) (court must attempt to harmonize jury answers to interrogatories and read interrogatories with instructions)
- Esaw v. Friedman, 217 Conn. 553 (Conn.) (affirming that affirmative causation interrogatory need not specify which injuries were proven; verdict may still be adequate)
- Monti v. Wenkert, 287 Conn. 101 (Conn.) (presumption that jury followed court instructions absent showing otherwise)
- DeEsso v. Litzie, 172 Conn. App. 787 (Conn. App.) (standards for reviewing denial of additur or to set aside verdict; defer to trial court and jury if reasonable basis exists)
- Melendez v. Deleo, 159 Conn. App. 414 (Conn. App.) (upholding verdict awarding all claimed economic damages but no noneconomic damages)
- Cusano v. Lajoie, 178 Conn. App. 605 (Conn. App.) (economic awards for pain-related treatments do not automatically compel noneconomic awards)
- Silva v. Walgreen Co., 120 Conn. App. 544 (Conn. App.) (jury may credit diagnostic/prophylactic treatment without finding compensable pain)
- Smith v. Lefebre, 92 Conn. App. 417 (Conn. App.) (jury not required to find that every injury causes compensable pain)
- Lidman v. Nugent, 59 Conn. App. 43 (Conn. App.) (affirming verdict of economic damages and no noneconomic damages)
- Wiseman v. Armstrong, 295 Conn. 94 (Conn.) (Practice Book § 16-32 requires polling if requested; refusal to poll when requested may require showing of harm)