Verrillo v. Green, 155 Conn. 694

Per Curiam.

This appeal claimed error in a portion of the charge to ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‍the jury on the issue of damages and in the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict as excessive.

In the light ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‍of the entire charge on the issue of damages and the limited exception taken to it, we find nothing erroneous. Lucier v. Meriden-Wallingford Sand & Stone Co., 153 Conn. 422, ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‍426, 216 A.2d 818.

On the evidence presented, the jury could reasonably find that the damages awarded constituted fair, *695just and reasonable compensation for the injuries ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‍the plaintiffs sustained. Accordingly, there was no error in the refusal of the court to set the verdict aside. Schaller v. Roadside Inn, Inc., 154 Conn. 61, ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‍68, 221 A.2d 268; Lopez v. Price, 145 Conn. 560, 564, 569, 145 A.2d 127.

There is no error.

Case Details

Case Name: Verrillo v. Green

Court Name: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date Published: May 10, 1967

Citations: 155 Conn. 694; 230 A.2d 20

Court Abbreviation: Conn.