Munn v. Hotchkiss School, SC19525

Background

Plaintiff Cara L. Munn suffered severe, long‑term injuries from an insect‑borne disease contracted on a school‑organized trip abroad; suit against Hotchkiss School followed.
Jury awarded $31.5 million in noneconomic damages; defendant moved for remittitur in the federal district court, which was denied; appeal/certified questions reached the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Justice McDonald concurs in result on duty to warn issue but writes separately on remittitur standards and review.
The concurrence agrees Connecticut law supports imposing a duty on schools organizing foreign trips to warn/protect against serious insect‑borne diseases (joins part I of majority).
The concurrence finds the remittitur jurisprudence internally inconsistent, especially regarding review of large noneconomic awards, and urges legislative or judicial clarification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Connecticut remittitur standards and review are coherent and provide guidance	Remittitur should be assessed under existing precedents; trial court applied standards and denial should stand	Existing precedents are inconsistent; denial should be reviewed for proper application of law	Court (concurring) holds precedents are muddled but, because parties did not ask to revisit standards, trial court denial did not constitute abuse of discretion
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying remittitur of $31.5M noneconomic award	Jury verdict supported by evidence of plaintiff’s injuries; remittitur not warranted	The award is virtually unprecedented and shocks the conscience; remittitur appropriate under clearer standards	Concurring justice would find the award shocking on de novo review but concurs that under current law and standards the district court’s denial was not an abuse of discretion
Proper standard(s) for ordering remittitur (subjective vs objective tests)	Plaintiff: defer to jury; remittitur only in narrow, legally erroneous cases	Defendant: awards that are plainly excessive, unsupported, or influenced by passion should be reduced	Concurrence catalogs at least four conflicting tests in precedent (plainly excessive; shocks sense of justice; includes items contrary to law; very clear and striking wrong) and calls for clarification
Standard of appellate review for remittitur (abuse of discretion vs de novo)	Plaintiff: appellate review should be deferential (abuse of discretion)	Defendant: legal determinations should be reviewed de novo; inconsistent past practice	Concurrence notes paradox and inconsistency in Connecticut cases and urges clearer rule whether de novo review applies to legal determinations underlying remittitur decisions

Key Cases Cited

Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 303 Conn. 276 (discusses remittitur standards and requirement for memorandum of decision)
Buckman v. People Express, Inc., 205 Conn. 166 (examined whether verdict is grossly excessive as a question of law)
Peck v. Jacquemin, 196 Conn. 53 (treated remittitur determination as a pure question of law)
Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (addressed additur/remittitur review and statute codification)
Mahon v. B.V. Unitron Mfg., Inc., 284 Conn. 645 (posture on when court may reduce award after finding excess as matter of law)
Alfano v. Insurance Center of Torrington, 203 Conn. 607 (interpreted trial court’s duties when award is excessive)
Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (stated remittitur decision rests within court’s discretion)
Bovat v. Waterbury, 258 Conn. 574 (discussed scope of General Statutes § 52-216a and joint tortfeasor context)
Lee v. Lee, 171 Conn. 1 (articulated traditional test: award within uncertain limits or shocks sense of justice)
Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (federal constitutional limits on additur/remittitur)
Munn v. Hotchkiss School, 795 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (trial record/context regarding absence of structured basis for the $31.5M noneconomic figure)