157 Conn.App. 223
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff was in a long-term intimate relationship with defendant, a hospital surgeon; defendant covertly installed multiple surveillance devices (bedroom cameras hidden in gifts, spyware on a laptop, and a GPS in her car) and monitored her for years.
- Plaintiff discovered some devices in 2007; police seized some equipment; later professional sweep in 2010 confirmed continuing transmissions. Defendant admitted installation and monitoring at trial and had previously sworn at an accelerated rehabilitation hearing that no devices remained.
- Plaintiff sued alleging invasion of privacy, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent misrepresentation; jury found for plaintiff and awarded $2,000,000 in noneconomic damages.
- Defendant moved for remittitur (arguing the award was excessive and punitive) and objected on appeal to the trial court permitting playback, during jury deliberations, of a portion of plaintiff’s trial testimony that included a prefatory remark by plaintiff’s counsel.
- Trial court allowed playback of the recorded testimony excerpt and denied remittitur; defendant appealed. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by permitting playback, during jury deliberations, of an excerpt that included a prefatory remark by plaintiff’s counsel | Playback was proper; the excerpted testimony was responsive evidence and cumulative of other testimony | Playback of counsel’s prefatory remark was improper and should have been excluded during deliberations | No abuse of discretion: remark was cumulative, no contemporaneous objection when originally made, limiting instructions minimized any harm; playback permitted |
| Whether $2,000,000 verdict was excessive / based on punitive motives, requiring remittitur | Award compensates severe, lasting noneconomic harms (PTSD, loss of privacy, ongoing fear); evidence supports large noneconomic award | Award is excessive, unsupported by economic damages, and effectively punitive | No remittitur: evidence (extensive covert surveillance, ongoing transmissions, expert PTSD testimony, lasting harm) supports award; jury instructions prohibited punitive damages and presumed followed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rubaka, 72 A. 566 (Conn. 1909) (trial judge has discretion to permit jury review of testimony)
- State v. Fletcher, 525 A.2d 535 (Conn. App. 1987) (reasonableness of request to review testimony lies within trial court discretion)
- State v. Andrews, 96 A.3d 1199 (Conn. 2014) (appellate standard for reviewing trial court discretion)
- State v. Miguel C., 46 A.3d 126 (Conn. 2012) (playback of stricken question during deliberations was improper where question was sole source of contested statement)
- Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 43 A.3d 722 (Conn. App. 2012) (standard and review for remittitur decisions)
- Manning v. Michael, 452 A.2d 1157 (Conn. 1982) (jury’s pain-and-suffering award will be sustained if it does not shock the sense of justice)
- Katsetos v. Nolan, 368 A.2d 172 (Conn. 1976) (comparisons between verdicts have limited value)
- Jerz v. Humphrey, 276 A.2d 884 (Conn. 1971) (no precise formula for noneconomic damages)
- State v. Grant, A.3d (Conn. App.) (questions by counsel are not evidence)
- State v. Boscarino, 861 A.2d 579 (Conn. App. 2004) (presumption that jury follows limiting instructions)
- Gajewski v. Pavelo, 643 A.2d 1276 (Conn. 1994) (presume jury follows court instructions)
- Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 3 A.3d 892 (Conn. 2010) (reiteration that jury is presumed to follow instructions)