Pecher v. Distefano
2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 384
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Pecher sued Distefano after falling from a horse during lessons at Showtime Stables and suffering knee injuries that required surgery.
- Distefano required riders to sign a "Release and Hold Harmless Agreement" and posted a sign; Pecher challenged admission of a signed release (by a companion) and a photograph of the sign at trial.
- Trial court denied Pecher's motion in limine to exclude the document, admitted the release (initially limited to showing it was signed by a witness), and later admitted it as evidence that Pecher was warned of risks; the court instructed the jury that the release could not be used to bar negligence claims.
- The jury returned a verdict for Distefano; Pecher appealed arguing harmful evidentiary error in admitting the release and the photo.
- The appellate record submitted by Pecher lacked numerous trial transcripts (including direct testimony of Pecher, direct of Ulmer, and counsel closings), preventing full review of claimed evidentiary harm.
- The appellate court affirmed because the incomplete record precluded meaningful application of the harm analysis required to grant a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of release and photo | The release and photo prejudicial, irrelevant, and void as against public policy (Reardon) — should be excluded | Evidence was admissible to show Pecher was warned of inherent risks and to rebut failure-to-warn allegations under § 52-557p | Court did not decide admissibility on merits; affirmed because record incomplete to evaluate harm |
| Whether admission required new trial | Admission was harmful and central to defendant's case; tainted jury | Even if admitted, harm must be shown in context of full trial; evidence could be limited to notice of risk | Plaintiff failed to show harmful error due to incomplete record; no reversal |
| Scope of limiting instruction | Instruction insufficient to cure prejudice from release/photo | Trial court gave limiting instructions that the release could not waive negligence claims and was only notice of risks | Court noted limiting instructions were given but could not fully assess adequacy without full record |
| Applicability of § 52-557p to evidence | Statute already imposes assumption of risk, so release irrelevant | Specific failure-to-warn allegations made evidence of actual warning relevant | Court declined to resolve statutory relevance given no showing of harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, 280 Conn. 153 (recognizes releases waiving negligence liability in equine context violate public policy)
- Desrosiers v. Henne, 283 Conn. 361 (appellate court may refuse to review evidentiary claims where record is incomplete)
- Hayes v. Camel, 283 Conn. 475 (harm analysis for evidentiary error: relation to central issues, curative measures, cumulativeness)
- Ryan Transportation, Inc. v. M & G Associates, 266 Conn. 520 (declining review when transcript omissions prevent harm assessment)
- Duncan v. Mill Management Co. of Greenwich, Inc., 308 Conn. 1 (evidentiary error requires showing the ruling was both wrong and harmful)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88 (party asserting error must establish harm for new trial)
- Chester v. Manis, 150 Conn. App. 57 (appellate refusal to review evidentiary claim when record incomplete)
- Quaranta v. King, 133 Conn. App. 565 (same)