Thomas v. KatzThomas v. Katz
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bogdanski
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence оf the defendant, a landlord, in the maintenance of a common stairway of a multistory apartment building. From the judgment rendеred on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed, claiming that the verdict was not supрorted by the evidence, that it was excessive, and that the court erred in failing to set the verdict aside and in making various rulings on evidence.
We consider first the claimed errors with respect to the rulings on evidence.
The defendant did, however, brief a claim of error with respect to the court’s charge to the jury concerning the subject of the failure to call a witness. Again a reference to the Practice Book discloses that §249 provides in part that “[t]he supreme court shall not be bound to consider error as to the giving of, or the failure to give, an instruction unless the matter is covered by a written rеquest to charge or exception has been taken by the party
The remaining claims of error concerning the verdict are tested by the evidence printed in the parties’ briefs. The preliminary statements оf facts contained in the parties’ briefs, pursuant to §§ 631A and 632A of the Practice Book, reveal the following undisputed fаcts: On and before July 24, 1969, the defendant was the owner of a multistory apartment house located at 437-443 Helen Street in Bridgеport. On that date, the plaintiff made an arrangement with the defendant to rent an upstairs apartment, receivеd a receipt for the rental payment, and was told he could move in. The next evening, along with his son and a friend, the рlaintiff began to move furniture and his belongings into the apartment up through a common rear stairway. While reaching for a light chain at the top of the stairway, the plaintiff fell down the stairway and was injured. The defendant offered evidencе to show that the rear stairway was illuminated by timer-controlled lights, and that the building was inspected periodically by a building supеrintendent and by the defendant himself. The plaintiff offered evidence to show that it was dark on the stairway,
“[T]hе question whether there was sufficient evidence [to support the verdict] is for the jury, who have the sole province of weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses.” Hanauer v. Coscia, 157 Conn. 49, 53, 244 A.2d 611. “For the attack on the court’s refusal to set asidе the verdict to succeed, it must appear that the evidence furnished no reasonable basis for the jury’s conclusion .... Kronish v. Provasoli, 149 Conn. 368, 370, 179 A.2d 823. . . . The choice of the more credible evidence was for [the jury] to make. Desmarais v. Pinto, 147 Conn. 109, 110, 157 A.2d 596.” Petrizzo v. Commercial Contractors Corporation, 152 Conn. 491, 499, 208 A.2d 748. Once evidence has beеn submitted to a jury, it is they who decide whether the evidence is sufficient for a finding of liability. The evidence presented to thе jury and the inferences that could be drawn therefrom furnished a reasonable basis for the jury’s ultímale conclusion. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court correctly refused to set the verdict aside.
The jury by their verdict awarded the plaintiff $17,000 damages. The court thereafter ordered the amount reduced to $15,000 because the ad damnum was $15,000. The defendant claims that the verdict as accepted was excessive and not commensurate with the injuries reсeived.
It is fundamental that the trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict as excessive is given. great weight, and every rеasonable presumption should be
The evidence as to damages was that the plaintiff was thirty years of age with a life expectancy of thirty-five years at the time of trial, that he suffered a cerebral concussion, sprains of both knees, a sprain of the lumbоsacral muscles, contusions and bruises of the entire body, and that he incurred a 50 percent permanent partiаl disability of the back, requiring him to wear a back brace and use a cane for over a year. His special dаmages were $435 for medical expenses and $7280 for loss of wages for one year.
“The ultimate test which must be apрlied to the verdict by the trial court is whether the jury’s award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages оr whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury werе influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” Birgel v. Heintz, 163 Conn. 23, 28, 301 A.2d 249; Maltbie, Conn. App, Proc. § 197. The assessment of damagеs is peculiarly within the province of the jury and the court should not interfere with that determination except when the verdict is plainly excessive or exorbitant. Lopez v. Price, 145 Conn. 560, 569, 145 A.2d 127; Szivos v. Leonard, 113 Conn. 522, 525, 155 A. 637; Rutkowski v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 100 Conn. 49, 54, 123 A. 25.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.