Chykirda v. Yanush.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1945 |
| Citation | 131 Conn. 565,41 A.2d 449 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHYKIRDA v. YANUSH. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; McNiff, Judge.
Action by Jacob Chykirda against Stephen Yanush to recover damages for assault and battery. Judgment for the plaintiff on a trial to the jury in the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford county, and the plaintiff appeals as to the amount of damages and filed a motion for reargument.
No error, and motion for reargument denied.
Ralph G. Woolfson, of Hartford, for appellant.
Charles Stroh, of Hartford, for appellee.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
The plaintiff had a verdict of $72 for assault and battery and the jury, in answer to an interrogatory, stated that this included punitive damages. The plaintiff has appealed, assigning error in the overruling of a demurrer to part of the answer, in the denial of a motion to strike this part from the answer, in denying the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, in the charge, in submitting the interrogatory to the jury, and in denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict.
The defendant alleged alienation of his wife's affections by the plaintiff as just provocation for the assault. The plaintiff demurred to this allegation. The demurrer was overruled. He then moved to strike out the allegation, which motion was denied. The court based its rulings upon the ground that just provocation was a proper defense to a claim for punitive damages if it occurred immediately preceding the assault or came to the knowledge of the defendant so recently that his passion had not had time to cool. The rulings were correct. Morache v. Greenberg, 116 Conn. 549, 551, 165 A. 684. The denial of a motion for a directed verdict is never a ground of error.
Lombardi v. Laudati, 124 Conn. 569, 575, 200 A. 1019. The interrogatory was in conformance with a request made by the plaintiff. No evidence is certified to support the claim that the verdict should have been set aside as against the evidence.
The plaintiff claims that the court failed to charge the jury that evidence in support of the allegation that he alienated the affections of the defendant's wife was only admissible in mitigation of punitive damages and then only as showing a provocation immediately connected with the assault. The court specifically limited the consideration by the jury of this evidence to punitive damages and later in its charge instructed them that evidence to support the claim of provocation was restricted to conduct immediately connected with the assault and so recent, or so recently come to the defendant's knowledge, that his passions had not had time to cool. The instruction was unexceptionable. Morache v. Greenberg, supra.
The plaintiff attacks the charge as to the measure of punitive damages on the grounds that the court improperly commented on the failure of the plaintiff to submit evidence as to taxable costs and that it told the jury that it was mathematically impossible for them to include an attorney's fee in such damages.
The trial court gave the jury the correct rule: Punitive damages consist of the expenses of the action that the plaintiff must meet, including the attorney's fee, from which ‘would be deducted what are known as the taxable costs.’ It stated that there were certain costs which the law provides shall be collected by the party who wins the action and that in the instant case if the plaintiff won his action he would recover ‘certain taxable costs,’ but that the jury need have no concern with taxable costs. The effect of the charge was that the jury were told to disregard an item which, under the law, should be deducted in determining damages. This was not harmful to the plaintiff.
As to the claim that the court told the jury that it was mathematically impossible to determine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harrell
......Givens, supra, 579; see Reed v. Reincke, 155 Conn. 591, 596, 236 A.2d 909 (1967); Chykirda v. Yanush, 131 Conn. 565, 569, 41 A.2d 449 (1945). To do otherwise would produce a substantially inequitable result. . III . The ......
-
Label Systems Corporation v. Aghamohammadi
...... Chykirda v. Yanush, 131 Conn. 565, 568, 41 A.2d 449 (1945); Hanna v. Sweeney, 78 Conn. 492, 494, 62 A. 785 (1906); Bennett v. Gibbons, 55 Conn. ......
-
Northwestern National Casualty Company v. McNulty
....... 10 Craney v. Donovan, 92 Conn. 236, 102 A. 640, L.R.A.1918C, 96 (1917); Chykirda v. Yanush, 131 Conn. 565, 569, 41 A. 2d 449, 450 (1915). . 11 There is considerable discussion of public policy in legal ......
-
Hylton v. Gunter
......The jury, as the trier of fact, and not the trial court, would ordinarily have had the authority to award punitive damages.”); but see Chykirda v. Yanush, 131 Conn. 565, 569, 41 A.2d 449 (1945) (“punitive damages are not properly recoverable in the absence of evidence as to the elements ......