Jury's Inclusion of Property Repair Bill Not Sufficient for Remittitur
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 10, 2017
Accident & Injury Accident & Injury Car Accident Lawsuit & Dispute Litigation
Summary: Blog post about the refusal of a Connecticut court to reduce an award for $10,414.33 of damages for a car accident injury.
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.
On September 12, 2004, the plaintiff, Kenneth Weber, sustained injuries in a three-car accident in New Milford, Connecticut. The plaintiff claimed personal and property injuries, as well as emotional upset, loss of enjoyment in life’s activities, loss of earnings, and possible future medical expenses. The jury awarded the plaintiff $10,414.33, including economic damages of $5,313.33. The defendant responded to this by making a motion for remittitur, or a motion for the judge to lower the amount of damages granted by the jury.
Defendants, who included two drivers, moved for remittitur following a jury verdict in the amount of $ 10,414.33 in favor of plaintiff injured person in his claim for personal injuries. The jury awarded economic damages of $ 5,414.33 and non-economic damages of $ 5,000. The drivers argued that such an award was excessive as it appeared to include a property damage bill which was not claimed as an element of the damages. In order for a judge to grant remittitur, the defendant must find that the jury determined such damages as a result of prejudice or mistake.
The injured person was involved in a three-car accident. He submitted evidence of personal injuries claiming emotional upset, loss of enjoyment of life's activities, loss of earnings and possible future medical expenses. Also put into evidence was a property damage bill estimate regarding his vehicle as well as photos of the damage to the vehicles. The purpose of the admission of those exhibits was to establish that the vehicle suffered damage in the collision thereby supporting the claim of injuries stemming from the accident. There was no claim for the recovery of property damage expenses. The jury rendered a general verdict without the use of jury interrogatories on the issue of damages. The court held that although most of the evidence remained uncontroverted the jury was not obligated to accept it. The jury was at liberty to accept what part of the evidence it chose and factor that into its calculations. The court could not speculate as to how the jury reached its award. The drivers failed to establish that the verdict was the product of partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption. The evidence supported the jury's conclusion on the issue of economic and non-economic damages. The motion for remittitur was denied.
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: Weber v. Trinidad, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 464 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2007)