189 Conn. App. 631
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff Nathaniel Sutera fell from scaffolding while assisting Timothy Sutera in repairs to a three‑story building owned by Deborah Natiello and became a paraplegic. Hospital blood test showed BAC between 0.07–0.10%. Plaintiff and Timothy S. were uncertain whether scaffolding was secured; plaintiff’s expert testified it was not secured.
- Plaintiff filed a four‑count complaint: two common‑law negligence counts (premises liability) and two counts pleading res ipsa loquitur as separate claims against each defendant. Defendants answered denying negligence and pleaded plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a special defense.
- At trial the court, over defendants’ objection, instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur. The jury received a single general verdict form with interrogatories that did not ask the jury to specify which theory it relied on.
- Jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff, found comparative fault 50/50, and awarded $7,208,534.66 (reduced to $3,604,267.33 after 50% reduction). Defendants moved to set aside the verdict or for remittitur, arguing the res ipsa instruction was improper and the verdict reflected sympathy/compromise; the trial court denied the motion.
- Defendants appealed claiming (1) instructional error in giving res ipsa loquitur, and (2) jury was improperly swayed by sympathy. The appellate court affirmed, applying the general verdict rule to bar review of the instructional claim and rejecting the sympathy/compromise argument.
Issues
| Issue | Sutera's Argument | Natiello/Timothy's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving a res ipsa loquitur instruction was reversible error | Res ipsa was supported because plaintiff relied partly on circumstantial evidence and there was limited direct proof; instruction appropriate | Instruction was improper because plaintiff introduced direct evidence (expert testimony) of specific negligence, so res ipsa should not have been given; it likely confused jury | General verdict rule bars-review of instructional error: plaintiff pleaded res ipsa as separate counts, defendants denied them, jury returned a general verdict, and submitted interrogatories did not reveal which theory controlled; claim unreviewable |
| Whether interrogatories preclude general verdict rule | Interrogatories and verdict form were sufficient to sustain verdict without parsing theories | Submitted interrogatories did not disclose grounds for verdict, so they do not avoid general verdict rule | Interrogatories here were insufficiently framed to disclose jury’s basis; general verdict rule applies |
| Whether jury verdict was a sympathy‑driven compromise requiring remittitur | Verdict and large award were justified by evidence of severe injury and damages | Verdict reflects sympathy/compromise because jury found plaintiff negligent yet awarded near full damages | Trial court did not abuse discretion: finding of plaintiff’s comparative negligence undermines sympathy/compromise claim; award not plainly excessive |
| Whether res ipsa can coexist with comparative negligence | Res ipsa may be applied even if plaintiff’s negligence contributed; jury should apportion fault per statute | Defendants argued res ipsa inapplicable where direct evidence exists or where defendants lacked control | Court notes res ipsa not appropriate when plaintiff alleges specific acts of negligence and introduces direct evidence, but did not reach merits due to general verdict rule; acknowledges Giles permits res ipsa with comparative negligence when properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Burns, 225 Conn. 782 (defines scenarios when general verdict rule applies)
- Giles v. New Haven, 228 Conn. 441 (res ipsa loquitur may apply despite plaintiff’s contributory negligence; jury must apportion fault)
- Pineau v. Home Depot, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 248 (res ipsa inappropriate when plaintiff introduces specific direct evidence of defendant’s negligence)
- Perez v. Cumba, 138 Conn. App. 351 (interrogatories only defeat general verdict rule if they disclose grounds for jury’s decision)
- Fabrizio v. Glaser, 38 Conn. App. 458 (efficacy of interrogatories depends on framing to reveal jury’s basis)
- Green v. H.N.S. Management Co., 91 Conn. App. 751 (general verdict rule prevents disturbing verdict that may have arisen under cloud of error)
- Munn v. Hotchkiss School, 326 Conn. 540 (standard for remittitur and reviewing verdicts as excessive)
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 242 Conn. 255 (discusses Curry’s rearticulation of general verdict rule)
- Niles v. Evitts, 16 Conn. App. 696 (jury finding of comparative negligence reduces concern of sympathy-motivated verdict)
- Levine v. 418 Meadow Street Associates, LLC, 163 Conn. App. 701 (trial court reviews evidence in light most favorable to sustaining verdict on motion for remittitur)