Childs v. Bainer
Decision Date | 15 August 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 15048,15048 |
Citation | 235 Conn. 107,663 A.2d 398 |
Parties | Harry CHILDS v. Frank BAINER. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Katherine C. Callahan, with whom, on the brief, were Karen P. Blado, Robert R. Simpson, Hartford and David A. Sylvestre, West Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
James A. Mulhall, Jr., with whom was Kevin T. Nixon, Sr., Naugatuck, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The sole issue on appeal is whether a trial court is required to grant an additur in a personal injury case in which the jury has awarded to the prevailing party economic damages but no noneconomic damages. The plaintiff, Harry Childs, had alleged and attempted to prove at trial that the negligent driving of the defendant, Frank Bainer, had caused him to sustain damages resulting from personal injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him economic damages only. 1 Because the jury had failed to award noneconomic damages, the plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-228b, 2 filed a motion with the trial court for an additur and, alternatively, to set aside the verdict as to damages only. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion, and the plaintiff appealed from the judgment to the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court held that the trial court had improperly denied the plaintiff's motion, determining that an award of economic damages coupled with an award of zero noneconomic damages is inadequate as a matter of law. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case "for further proceedings to determine a reasonable additur for noneconomic damages, to give the parties an opportunity to accept the additur, and, if they do not accept the additur, a new trial is ordered as to all issues." Childs v. Bainer, 35 Conn.App. 301, 305, 645 A.2d 1041 (1994). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to consider the following question: "Is it an abuse of discretion for a trial court to refuse an additur in a personal injury case in which the jury awarded economic damages but no non-economic damages?" Childs v. Bainer, 231 Conn. 924, 648 A.2d 162 (1994). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for additur in this case and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The following facts are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly arising from a rear end collision caused by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that, as a result of the defendant's negligent driving, the plaintiff "was thrown about the interior of his car and sustained bruises, contusions, lacerations and abrasions about his body and an acute strain/sprain of the cervical and lumbosacral area of the spine and from said injuries has suffered great pain and will continue so to suffer for the rest of his life." The plaintiff claimed that as a direct result of these injuries, he incurred medical expenses for hospitalization, doctor's care, drugs and medication, and would continue to incur such expenses in the future. The plaintiff also claimed a loss of earnings and earning capacity, which losses would also continue in the future. The defendant denied that he had been negligent and that he had caused the accident, stating that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff were the result of the plaintiff's own negligence and carelessness.
It is undisputed that at trial, 3 the plaintiff claimed medical expenses of $5129, lost earnings of $14,000, and damages for pain and suffering. In support of his claims, the plaintiff submitted evidence of an injury to his shoulder, which resolved itself within one week of the collision, a neck injury, which healed within five months of the collision, and a lower back injury, which left him with a 12 percent permanent disability as a result of the collision. The plaintiff did not claim property damage.
The defendant submitted evidence to rebut the plaintiff's claims, including: an emergency room report, which did not disclose the existence of any bruises, contusions, lacerations or abrasions on the plaintiff following the collision; statements made by the plaintiff to emergency room medical staff that his body had not come into contact with any part of his car; evidence that he had returned to work at his nursery and landscaping job the day after the accident; evidence that the plaintiff did not take painkilling medications despite his allegations of significant pain; emergency room and radiology reports on the day of the accident showing that the plaintiff's only complaint had concerned his neck and shoulder; a diagnosis from the plaintiff's doctor that the neck was "doing fine" and that the plaintiff suffered no permanent disability of the neck; and photographs of the plaintiff lifting large cabinets soon after the collision. In short, the extent and duration of the plaintiff's injuries were "hotly contested."
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $3649 in economic damages, but did not award any noneconomic damages. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested that the trial court order an additur or, if the defendant failed to accept the additur, set aside the verdict as to damages only. The trial court denied the motion, finding that "the award [was] not manifestly unjust and palpably against the evidence." The plaintiff appealed from the judgment to the Appellate Court.
On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that an award of more than nominal 4 economic damages coupled with an award of zero noneconomic damages in an action seeking damages for personal injuries is inadequate as a matter of law. The Appellate Court agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the trial court's judgment. Childs v. Bainer, supra, 35 Conn.App. at 305, 645 A.2d 1041. The question before this court is whether the Appellate Court improperly imposed a per se rule that an award of economic damages must be coupled with an award of noneconomic damages. The defendant argues that the decision to order an additur is a matter of judicial discretion and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in light of the conflicting and insubstantial evidence of injury presented at trial. We agree with the defendant and reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
"In an appeal following certification, the focus of our review is not the actions of the trial court, but the actions of the Appellate Court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cahn v. Cahn, 225 Conn. 666, 671, 626 A.2d 296 (1993). We must determine, therefore, whether the Appellate Court improperly concluded, as a matter of law, that a plaintiff's personal injury verdict is defective if the jury awards greater than nominal economic damages but zero noneconomic damages.
We accord great deference to a jury's award of damages. Mather v. Griffin Hospital, 207 Conn. 125, 138, 540 A.2d 666 (1988). Similarly, "[t]he credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony lie within the province of the jury." Desmarais v. Pinto, 147 Conn. 109, 110, 157 A.2d 596 (1960). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Skrzypiec v. Noonan, 228 Conn. 1, 10, 633 A.2d 716 (1993).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ginsberg v. Fusaro, 225 Conn. 420, 430-31, 623 A.2d 1014 (1993); accord Skrzypiec v. Noonan, supra, 228 Conn. at 10-11, 633 A.2d 716; Malmberg v. Lopez, 208 Conn. 675, 679-80, 546 A.2d 264 (1988).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Malmberg v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo
...limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Childs v. Bainer, 235 Conn. 107, 113, 663 A.2d 398 (1995). "If, on the evidence, the jury could reasonably have decided as they did, [the reviewing court] will not find error in the tr......
-
Maldonado v. Flannery
...view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the prevailing party ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Childs v. Bainer , 235 Conn. 107, 113, 663 A.2d 398 (1995) ; see Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC , supra, at 290, 32 A.3d 318 ("[w]e emphasize that, in reviewing the evidence in t......
-
Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., YALE-NEW
...and 52-572h. Number 87-227 of the 1987 Public Acts, commonly known as 'Tort Reform II,' revised those sections." Childs v. Bainer, 235 Conn. 107, 120 n. 9, 663 A.2d 398 (1995).17 In partially abrogating the common law rule for certain specified collateral sources, the legislature was carefu......
-
State v. Galarza
...choice of which evidence is more credible and what effect it is to be given." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Childs v. Bainer, 235 Conn. 107, 116, 663 A.2d 398 (1995). The court is in a better position than we, on the basis of the written record, to gauge the tenor of trial and to dete......
-
1995 Connecticut Tort Law Review
...cited below. 185. Home Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 235 Conn. 185, 205-06, 663 A.2d 1001(1995). 186. Id. at 206 and n. 19. 187. 235 Conn. 107, 663 A.2d 398 188. 35 Conn.App. 301, 645 A.2d 1041 (1994). 189. Childs, 235 Conn. at 117-18. There was evidence, however, of a neck injury ......
-
Developments in Tort Law: 1997 Annual Survey
...on a ground that was not first raised in the city's motion for directed verdict?" 196. Beverly, supra note 188. 197. Id. at 645. 198. 235 Conn. 107, 663 A.2d 398 199. 152 Conn. 678, 211 A.2d 702 (1965). 200. 44 Conn. App. at 647-48. 201. 46 Conn. App. 76, 698 A.2d 364 (1997). 202. Id. at 83......