Court Denies Noneconomic Additur For Plaintiff Driver's $3,827.26 Award
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 10, 2017
Accident & Injury Accident & Injury Car Accident Lawsuit & Dispute Lawsuit
Summary: Blog post on a case where additional damages were denied by the court after the plaintiffs appealed the finding of the jury that denied them non-economic damages.
Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
Plaintiffs, driver and passenger, filed motions to set aside the jury’s verdict and additur, or additional award by the court, to recover damages for injuries sustained in a car accident with the defendant. Both plaintiffs were initially awarded $3,827.26 and $3,427.26, respectively, for economic damages. The plaintiffs brought this action in contest of the jury’s whole rejection of their noneconomic claims for pain and suffering.
The driver and the passenger sued the tortfeasor to recover for the injuries they sustained in a car accident. The driver claimed medical expenses and pain and suffering. The jury awarded economic damages and no non-economic damages. The passenger claimed medical expenses, pain and suffering and permanent partial disability. The jury awarded the passenger economic damages and no non-economic damages. The driver and the passenger filed motions to set aside the verdicts as inadequate, contrary to law and against the evidence, and also moved for additur. The court declined to grant additur as the amount of damages was a matter peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact. In considering the motion to set aside the verdict, the test was whether the award of damages fell somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocked the sense of justice as to compel the conclusions that the jury were influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption. Here, there was no reason to believe the jury was so influenced, and the award was reasonable. The court found that a jury could find the plaintiff’s claims for pain and suffering were exaggerated, because there was no claim of missing work or activity after the injury. The driver's and the passenger's motions were denied. The passenger's and the driver's motions to set aside the jury verdict and for additur were denied where the amount of damages was within the province of the jury and where the awards of damages were reasonable.
At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.
Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Distasio v. Delpo, 1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1929 (Jul. 18, 1997)
