Sigular v. Gilson
2013 WL 1197131
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- On April 19, 2008, decedent William Gilson ran a stop sign and struck plaintiff's vehicle.
- Plaintiff Natalie Sigular sued for damages alleging negligence and negligence per se, seeking recovery for injuries and medical expenses.
- Plaintiff received emergency treatment, then treated by orthopedic Dr. Luchini for persistent back pain; x-rays were normal and initial diagnosis was a soft tissue lumbar sprain.
- Over time, plaintiff’s back symptoms fluctuated; Luchini diagnosed a 5% lumbar impairment in 2009 and continued treatment through 2011.
- Plaintiff’s testimony and deposition contained inconsistencies regarding pain radiating to legs, neck injuries, and activity limitations; defendant highlighted these during trial.
- Jury verdicts: first verdict awarded zero economic damages and $5,000 noneconomic damages; after court cautions, second verdict awarded yes on liability but zero economic and zero noneconomic damages; trial court denied motion to set aside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was inherently ambiguous or contrary to law | Sigular argues the verdict, though for damages, awarded none. | Gilson asserts the verdict was intelligible given contested damages and the negligence per se theory. | Not inherently ambiguous; within permissible range given contested damages. |
| Whether the verdict shocks the conscience or was driven by mistake or prejudice | Sigular contends the damages award is unjust and reflects error. | Lack of clear evidence of misconduct or prejudice; damages left to jury's credibility. | No abuse of discretion; verdict within the realm of fair and reasonable compensation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Froom Development Corp. v. Developers Realty, Inc., 114 Conn. App. 618 (Conn. App. 2009) (damages contested; zero award within uncertain limits)
- Hughes v. Lamay, 89 Conn. App. 378 (Conn. App. 2005) (zero damages possible when damages are speculative)
- Hall v. Bergman, 296 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2010) (general verdict ambiguity analysis)
- Malmberg v. Lopez, 208 Conn. 675 (Conn. 1988) (general verdict ambiguity with wrongful death context)
- Ginsberg v. Fusaro, 225 Conn. 420 (Conn. 1993) (jury instructed on liability including damages and causation)
- Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174 (Conn. 2000) (test for determining inherently ambiguous awards)
- Santa Maria v. Klevecz, 70 Conn. App. 10 (Conn. App. 2002) (damages as a jury question; general verdict context)
- Schettino v. Labarba, 82 Conn. App. 445 (Conn. App. 2004) (appellate deference to jury verdicts and evidence)