Shook v. Eastern Connecticut Health Network, Inc.
165 A.3d 256
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- On Nov. 21, 2012, Shook (plaintiff) and Bartholomew (defendant driver) collided in a busy Manchester intersection; witnesses gave conflicting accounts about which driver ran a red light.
- Shook sued Bartholomew for negligence and Eastern Connecticut Health Network (her employer) vicariously; defendants pleaded comparative negligence as a special defense.
- The cases were consolidated and tried to a jury; defendants submitted a written request to charge including comparative negligence instructions but did not specify the evidence supporting that charge.
- At the charging conference the trial court declined to give a comparative negligence instruction, noting no evidence of sightlines or other facts that would support apportioning fault to Shook; defendants excepted.
- The jury returned a verdict for Shook; defendants’ postverdict motion to set aside the verdict was denied. Defendants appealed, arguing (1) erroneous refusal to instruct on comparative negligence, (2) improper admission of Shook’s driving-history testimony, and (3) erroneous denial of motion to set aside the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should have instructed the jury on comparative negligence | Shook: no evidence supported apportioning fault; case was about who ran the red light | Defendants: evidence (intersection configuration, sightlines, opportunity to perceive/react) supported comparative negligence and statutes/case law allow apportionment even if plaintiff had right-of-way | Court: refused review of appellate factual and legal theories; defendants’ request to charge violated Practice Book rules by failing to tie law to evidence, so no error in refusing the instruction |
| Whether admission of plaintiff’s testimony about prior driving history was improper character evidence | Shook: testimony was relevant and for jury weight | Defendants: testimony (one prior minor accident ~20 years earlier) was improper character evidence and should have been excluded | Court: claim not preserved—defendants objected only on relevance, not on character-evidence grounds, so appellate review refused |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying motion to set aside verdict | Shook: verdict was supported by jury and trial rulings were proper | Defendants: verdict should be set aside because of (a) refusal to instruct on comparative negligence and (b) admission of driving-history evidence | Court: denied abuse of discretion; prior rulings rejecting defendants’ preserved claims are determinative, so motion denial was proper |
| Preservation and request-to-charge requirements — scope of appellate review | Shook: Practice Book rules require specificity linking requests to evidence | Defendants: raised broader statutory and case-law arguments on appeal not presented below | Court: appellate review limited where trial request failed to specify evidence and party did not raise legal authorities below; refusal to scour record for supporting evidence is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Burns, 213 Conn. 446 (Conn. 1990) (request to charge defective when it did not refer to evidence; abstract law insufficient)
- Mancaniello v. Guile, 154 Conn. 381 (Conn. 1966) (party relying on statute must submit written request citing statute)
- State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236 (Conn. 2008) (raising new theories on appeal can amount to ambush of trial court)
- Birkhamshaw v. Socha, 156 Conn. App. 453 (Conn. App. 2015) (objection on relevance does not preserve character-evidence claim)