Opinion
In this certified appeal, we must examine the delicate balance between two of the most basic principles of our law: the constitutional right of litigants to have the jury determine the amount of damages awarded; and the trial court’s broad authority to supervise the trial process. The defendant Ribeiro Trucking, LLC,
Because we discuss the evidence in considerable detail later in this opinion, our initial summary of the factual background is brief. On the morning of March 28, 2003, the plaintiff, Ghassan Saleh, was driving on Interstate 91 in Hartford, when his Nissan Altima was rear-ended by a van that had been rear-ended by a tractor trailer truck owned by the defendant. The plaintiff, who complained of neck, back and shoulder pain at the scene of the accident, was brought to Hartford Hospital by ambulance. He subsequently has been treated by numerous physicians, each of whom has assigned a permanency rating, assessing various percentages of permanent impairment to each injured body part. At the time of trial five years later, the plaintiff testified that he still experienced pain in connection with his injuries from the accident. The parties “stipulated [at trial] that the plaintiffs life expectancy is 15.8 years. The defendant admitted liability for the accident. The jury returned with a verdict of $12,132.31 in economic damages and $687,868 in noneconomic damages for a total of $700,000.31 in damages.” Id., 824.
The defendant subsequently filed posttrial motions seeking a new trial, an order setting aside the verdict and an order of remittitur as to the noneconomic damages. Following a hearing on the defendant’s motions, the court issued a memorandum of decision, finding
The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court “improperly ordered the remittitur in the absence of any reason to determine that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, shocked the sense of justice or was based on partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.”
The defendant claims that the Appellate Court did not accord proper deference to the trial court’s determination that exceptional circumstances justified the remittitur. Specifically, the defendant contends that the Appellate Court, by failing to employ every reasonable presumption in favor of affirming the decision of the trial court, did not properly apply the abuse of discretion standard. The plaintiff responds that the Appellate Court properly “examin[ed] the evidential basis of the verdict itself’ to determine whether the trial court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. We agree with the plaintiff.
Our review of the trial court’s grant of remittitur is dictated by, on the one hand, the high bar that must be met before a trial judge may set aside a jury verdict, and, on the other hand, the necessarily broad authority that the trial judge has to oversee the trial process. “The right of trial by jury is of ancient origin, characterized by Blackstone as the glory of the English law and the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 485, 55 S. Ct. 296, 79 L. Ed. 603 (1935). We repeatedly have stated that the award of damages, in particular, “is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trier of facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mahon v. B.V. Unitron Mfg., Inc., 284 Conn. 645, 661, 935 A.2d 1004 (2007). For that reason, we consistently have held that a court should exercise its authority to order a remittitur rarely—only in the most exceptional of circumstances. See, e.g., Waters v.
In determining whether to order remittitur, the trial court is required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Wochek v. Foley, 193 Conn. 582, 587, 477 A.2d 1015 (1984). Upon completing that review, “the court should not interfere with the jury’s determination except when the verdict is plainly excessive or exorbitant. . . . The ultimate test which must be applied to the verdict by the trial court is whether the jury’s award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption. . . . The court’s broad power to order a remittitur should be exercised only when it is manifest that the jury [has] included items of damage which are contrary to law, not supported by proof, or contrary to the court’s explicit and unchallenged instructions.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mahon v. B.V. Unitron Mfg., Inc., supra, 284 Conn. 661-62.
“Furthermore, [t]he decision whether to reduce a jury verdict because it is excessive as a matter of law [within the meaning of § 52-216a] rests solely within the discretion of the trial court . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 662. We have explained the reason underlying the great breadth of the trial court’s discretion over such matters: “There are, to be sure, sometimes, verdicts of this kind, when the trial judge is required
We acknowledge that the “shocks the sense of justice” standard provides vague guidance at best—due,
In its memorandum of decision, the trial court found that the jury’s award of damages did not “fall within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation” and was excessive. The court further stated that the verdict so shocked the conscience that it compelled the conclusion that the award was due to partiality, prejudice or mistake. In summarizing the facts that the jury reasonably could have found, the court identified two time periods. The first time period began on the date of the accident and ended on the date that the plaintiff was given a permanency rating. The second time period began on the date that the plaintiff was given a permanency rating and continued for the remainder of the plaintiffs life, in light of the parties’ stipulation that the plaintiff had a life expectancy of 15.8 years. With respect to the first time period, which began on March 28, 2003, and ended on October 2, 2006, a period of approximately forty-two months,
As we have stated in this opinion, our review of the trial court’s decision requires careful balancing. We have the thorny task of deferentially reviewing a decision that itself was required to employ deferential review, where the primary challenge is that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to accord proper deference to the jury’s verdict. In a sense, we must retrace the steps of the trial court. That is, we must begin by reviewing the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, just as the trial court was required to do. We then must examine the trial court’s decision in such a way that we employ every reasonable presumption in favor of its correctness.
Describing the accident, the plaintiff stated that the impact was “very, very hard.” When his car, the rear of which had sustained heavy damage, stopped moving, he realized immediately that his shoulder had been injured and that he could not move his right arm, or even turn around to see what was behind him. He was
The plaintiff subsequently was treated by a number of different physicians. Following Spector’s referral, the plaintiff first saw Filippini on April 29, 2003. At Filippini’s recommendation, the plaintiff began receiving physical therapy for his neck and back.
In January, 2005, the plaintiff began seeing another orthopedist, Anthony Spinella. In June, 2006, Spinella gave him a cortisone shot in his shoulder. The plaintiff experienced some relief—about 20 to 30 percent—from his shoulder pain for a period of about six months following the shot. When questioned as to why he did
Spinella referred the plaintiff to a physician at the pain management center at Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Qassem Kishawi, who examined the plaintiff on October 30, 2006. Kishawi recommended that the plaintiff receive cortisone shots in his neck and back, but the plaintiff refused because of his fear of needles. Kishawi twice mentioned in his consultation notes that the plaintiff expressed anxiety at the prospect of receiving shots. Kishawi observed that the plaintiff experienced “severe tenderness” over the lumbar facet joints and tenderness over the sacroiliac joints. On Kishawi’s advice, the plaintiff received a magnetic resonance image (MRI) of his lumbar spine, which revealed degeneration, some of it extensive, at various points in the plaintiffs spine. The MRI also revealed disc bulging, herniation and spinal stenosis.
Kishawi then referred the plaintiff to a neurosurgeon, Stephan Lange, who examined the plaintiff on January
With respect to the limitations that the plaintiffs injuries placed on him, evidence at trial revealed that he returned to work two days following the accident and was able to perform his usual duties, but only with great discomfort and with the aid of his pain medications. That is, in order to function, the plaintiff had to take pain medication when he woke up in the morning, followed by an additional dose with lunch, another dose in the afternoon, and a final dose at night. Outside of work, the plaintiff found himself unable to engage in certain activities that he previously had enjoyed. For example, prior to the accident, the plaintiff had worked in his yard every day, but after the accident he had to hire people to do the work. He had tried to rake leaves, but found himself “on [his] knees from the pain” in his back. He also used to be able to clean the pool and play with his children, but has been unable to engage in either of these activities since the accident. Finally, the plaintiff testified that he was no longer able to exercise.
The plaintiff testified extensively regarding the level of pain that he had experienced subsequent to the accident. Although he had some preexisting injuries, he testified that prior to the accident, he was experiencing little to no pain—and only infrequently—from those
In reviewing the trial court’s determination to order a remittitur on the basis of these facts, we must be mindful that “[i]n such a matter, a large discretion is of necessity vested in the trial court, and only in cases where that discretion is unreasonably exercised” should this court reverse the judgment of the trial court. Gray v. Fanning, 73 Conn. 115, 117, 46 A. 831 (1900). The question, then, is not whether we would have ordered a remittitur on this evidence. Rather, our
We emphasize that, in reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the trial court, and the reviewing court, are bound by the jury’s credibility determinations and all reasonable inferences the jury could have drawn from the evidence. The evidence in the present case, when viewed in that light, reveals that the plaintiff has suffered permanent disabilities as a result of the accident. Due to his injuries, he suffers considerable pain every day, at a level of eight out of ten. Testimony at trial revealed that he had suffered that level of pain continuously for five years. There was no evidence presented that the plaintiffs pain had lessened significantly since the accident, and every form of treatment that he had tried had failed to yield an improvement. The parties stipulated that the plaintiff had a life expectancy of 15.8 years—meaning that the plaintiff could expect to suffer significant pain every day for almost sixteen more years following trial. The plaintiff is required to take substantial amounts of medication just to make it through each day, and even with medication, he is now unable to engage in activities that he once enjoyed: playing with his children; exercising; and working around the house. Even employing every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the decision of the trial court, we cannot agree with the court’s conclusion that the jury’s award fell outside the necessarily uncertain limits of what is fair and reasonable compensation. The trial court’s broad discretion over the decision to award remittitur does not extend to a reduction of an award that is within the
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.
Also named as defendants were Cabbage Transport, Inc., Vincente Virola-Rodriguez and Oscar Quezada. For ease of discussion, we refer to Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, as the defendant in this opinion.
We granted the defendant’s petition for certification, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the remittitur and setting aside the verdict?” Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 294 Conn. 922, 984 A.2d 1083 (2009).
General Statutes § 52-216a provides in relevant part: “If the court at the conclusion of the trial concludes that the verdict is excessive as a matter of law, it shall order a remittitur and, upon failure of the party so ordered to remit the amount ordered by the court, it shall set aside the verdict and order a new trial. . .
The court denied the defendant’s motions for a new trial and to set aside the verdict.
The remittitur of $508,608 included a $5000 reduction of the economic damages in accordance with the stipulation of the parties that the medical bills totaling $12,132.31 should be reduced to $7132.31 because of a collateral source in the amount of $5000.
In response to the defendant’s motion for rectification or articulation, the court added the following language to its memorandum of decision: “Should the plaintiff agree to the remittitur ordered by this court, a judgment will enter in the amount of $191,392.31. If the remittitur is not accepted by the plaintiff, the [defendant’s] motion to set aside the verdict will be granted, the jury award will be set aside and a new trial will be ordered.”
We observe that the trial court used the phrase “shocks the conscience,” rather than the phrase we most commonly have used in our decisions, “shocks the sense of justice.” See, e.g., Mahon v. B.V. Unitron Mfg., Inc., 284 Conn. 645, 661, 935 A.2d 1004 (2007). We view the phrases as having the same meaning and use them interchangeably.
The plaintiff testified that the physical therapists were unable to perform therapy on his shoulder because the plaintiff’s shoulder pain was too great to allow them to touch it.
We observe that the plaintiffs submission of medical expenses shows that Filippini’s last charge to the plaintiff for pain medications was on August 20, 2004. The plaintiff was not charged for medications again until Spector charged him on December 2, 2004. Additionally, the plaintiff does not appear to have been charged for any pain medications between June, 2005, and November, 2005. Between November, 2006, and June, 2007, the only prescription for which the plaintiff was charged was ninety tablets of ibuprofen.
Although these gaps might indicate either that the plaintiff did not have, and therefore did not take, any medication during those time periods, or that the prescriptions covered those time periods, the plaintiff was not questioned regarding their significance. The issue was not argued to the jury and in any event, in construing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, any credibility determination must be resolved in favor of the jury’s verdict.
Because we conclude that the evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and, therefore, that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering remittitur, it is unnecessary for us to reach the plaintiffs additional claim that the trial court improperly failed to award any damages for future pain and suffering. We observe, however, that it is unclear whether the court considered the award of $74,260 to include damages for pain and suffering. Although the court did not expressly state that the award did include those damages, the memorandum of decision specifically acknowledges that the plaintiff continued to experience pain and suffering.
Although it is also unnecessary for us to address the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly applied a mathematical formula in calculating reasonable damages, we note our disagreement with the Appellate Court’s conclusion that the trial court improperly estimated reasonable monthly damages, then multiplied that amount by the number of months during which the plaintiff was entitled to recover. See Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, supra, 117 Conn. App. 828. There is nothing inherently wrong with estimating damages by that method, so long as that estimation does not run afoul of the requirement that the jury’s award must be sustained if it is supported by the evidence viewed in its most favorable light. Our references to the impropriety of using a mathematical formula to calculate reasonable damages have focused on the inappropriateness of requiring a specific proportion between the economic and noneconomic damages. See, e.g., Campbell v. Gould, supra, 194 Conn. 40 (concluding that trial court improperly ordered remittitur on basis of “ ‘very low’ ” special damages, and stating that “[w]e have in the past . . . discountenanced using the special damages as a yardstick by which to measure the general damages”); Wochek v. Foley, supra, 193 Conn. 585 (trial court improperly ordered remittitur on basis that “only [$300] in special damages was shown”).
The distinction between the mathematical formula in the present case and the type of calculation that we have stated is improper is this: The trial court in the present case did not use a mathematical formula to calculate the reasonableness of the damages. It arrived at a determination of what would constitute reasonable damages—without explaining its methodology in arriving at that amount—for a period of one month, and then simply allowed recovery of that amount for the duration of the recovery period. In both Campbell and Wochek, by contrast, the trial court required a certain proportionality between the economic and noneconomic damages, and determined that the jury award was excessive because the proportion between the two was too high.