Szczycinska v. Acampora
10 A.3d 531
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Motor vehicle collision led to negligence suit by plaintiff against defendant.
- Defendant disclosed Spinella as expert; Spinella examined plaintiff and testified about dorsal spine impairment.
- Trial court allowed Spinella's testimony over plaintiff's objection; court later instructed jury to reconsider verdict.
- Initial verdict awarded economic damages $3109.01 and no noneconomic damages; after reconsideration, noneconomic damages of $2000 were added to total $5109.01.
- Defendant cross-appealed claiming improper reconsideration; plaintiff appealed alleging improper admission of Spinella's testimony.
- CourtAffirmance at end: court affirmed trial court's judgment; Spinella testimony admitted; jury reconsideration within statutory discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spinella's dorsal spine impairment testimony was admissible | Szczecinska argued disclosure violated Practice Book § 13-4(b)(1) and sanctions should preclude testimony. | Acampora argued disclosure complied; testimony properly admitted. | Yes; court held disclosure complied and Spinella admissible. |
| Whether the court improperly ordered a second jury consideration of damages | Not applicable; court's action proper. | Court abused discretion by retroactively changing verdict; improper second consideration. | Not reviewable; standards discretionary and no improper instructions shown; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow-Westbrook, Inc. v. Candlewood Equestrian Practice, LLC, 119 Conn.App. 703 (2010) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings; harm required for reversal)
- Black v. Griggs, 74 Conn. 582 (1902) (jurisdiction to return jury for second consideration under § 52-223)
- Ryan v. Scanlon, 117 Conn. 428 (1933) (discretionary nature of returning jury for further consideration)