Fabrizio v. Smith
| Citation | 321 A.2d 467,164 Conn. 385 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1973 |
| Parties | Marino S. FABRIZIO, Administrator (Estate of Richard E. Fabrizio) v. Alfred E. SMITH et al. |
Maxwell Heiman, Bristol, with whom, on the brief were Thomas J. O'Donnell, and William J. Eddy, Bristol, for appellant (plaintiff).
Joseph P. Kenny, Hartford, with whom, on the brief was Leslie R. Brimmer, Hartford, for appellees (defendants).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MACDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
The plaintiff's decedent, just under twenty-one years of age, died as the result of an automobile accident which the defendants admitted was caused by the negligence of the named defendant, who was operating a family car owned by his wife, a codefendant. A jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $25,000. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motions for additur and to set aside the verdict as inadequate and the plaintiff appealed from the judgment, assigning error in the denial of his motions, in a portion of the charge and in the refusal of the court to charge in accordance with a request filed by the plaintiff.
In reviewing the action of the trial court in denying the motions for additur and to set aside the verdict, our primary concern is to determine whether the court abused its discretion and we decide only whether, on the evidence presented, the jury could fairly reach the verdict they did. Rood v. Russo, 161 Conn. 1, 3, 283 A.2d 220. In a lengthy memorandum of decision the court, a jurist of long experience, carefully analyzed the evidence and precedents and stated its conclusion that 'it is the view of the court in the case at bar that the verdict of $25,000 rendered by the jury cannot be said to be inadequate in view of the disclosed matters pertaining to the health of plaintiff's decedent; and, as already indicated, and under the circumstances, a verdict of less than $25,000 could have been returned and not be subject to justified interference by the court.' 'The fact that both the court and the jury concurred in their determination is a persuasive argument for sustaining the action of the court on the motion.' Rood v. Russo, supra, 5, 283 A.2d 222. On a review of the evidence as summarized in the appendices to the briefs and analyzed in the court's memorandum of decision and applying the basic test 'whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palkimas v. Lavine
...discretion in denying the motion. Skrzypiec v. Noonan, supra, 228 Conn. 11; Palomba v. Gray, supra, 208 Conn. 24; Fabrizio v. Smith, 164 Conn. 385, 386, 321 A.2d 467 (1973). The same test has been used in some criminal cases. State v. Alexander, supra, 254 Conn. 303-304; State v. Hammond, 2......
-
Collins v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
... ... SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY ... Supreme Court of Connecticut ... Feb. 21, 1973 ... [164 Conn. 370] ... R. Graeme Smith, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Louis R. Pepe, Hartford, for appellant (defendant) ... Ralph C. Dixon, Hartford, with whom, ... ...
-
Ginsberg v. Fusaro, 14471
...presented, the jury could fairly reach the verdict they did. Rood v. Russo, 161 Conn. 1, 3, 283 A.2d 220 (1971)." Fabrizio v. Smith, 164 Conn. 385, 386, 321 A.2d 467 (1973). The trial court's decision is significant because "the trial judge has had the same opportunity as the jury to view t......
-
Fritz v. Madow
...a $25,000 verdict is inadequate as a matter of law regardless of the circumstances and the evidence produced. See Fabrizio v. Smith, 164 Conn. 385, 386, 321 A.2d 467 (1973). General Statutes § 52-216a states that where a covenant not to sue has been given by a plaintiff, such agreement shal......