Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC
303 Conn. 276
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Ghassan Saleh was rear-ended on I-91; defendant Ribeiro Trucking, LLC admitted liability.
- Jury awarded $12,132.31 economic damages and $687,868 noneconomic damages ($700,000.31 total).
- Trial court granted remittitur reducing noneconomic damages by $508,608 to $191,392.31; plaintiff refused remittitur and verdict was set aside for a new trial.
- Court found noneconomic damages excessive and relied on periods: first 42 months post-accident to permanency rating, second period for life expectancy (15.8 years).
- Appellate Court reversed, holding trial court abused discretion by tying damages to a formula and not adequately detailing reasons; court required explicit, clear reasons in the memorandum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remittitur was proper given the evidence | Saleh argues the verdict was within range and not shockingly excessive | Ribeiro argues exceptional circumstances justify remittitur and deference due | No; trial court abused discretion; verdict within range of reasonable damages |
| Whether trial court properly explained its reasoning | Saleh contends memorandum lacked explicit, definite reasons | Ribeiro contends reasons were implicit in the record | No; explicit, definite reasons required in the memorandum to sustain remittitur |
| Whether mathematical proportionality or formula aided remittitur | Saleh asserts no rigid formula should dictate remittitur | Ribeiro argues formula ensures proportionality between damages | No; court may reject improper proportionality, but here error was in substitution of judgment rather than formula misuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahon v. B.V. Unitron Mfg., Inc., 284 Conn. 645 (2007) (damages award within jury’s discretion; remittitur to be used rarely)
- Waters v. Bristol, 26 Conn. 398 (1857) (remittitur requires very clear, definite, satisfactory reasons)
- Clark v. Pendleton, 20 Conn. 495 (1850) (remittitur justified only for very clear, indubitable wrong)
- Howe v. Raymond, 74 Conn. 68 (1901) (jury system supervision; deference to jury verdict; remittitur rare)