Ferris v. Hotel Pick Arms, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1959
• Citation: 157 A.2d 106,147 Conn. 72
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Harold W. FERRIS v. HOTEL PICK ARMS, INC., et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 106

157 A.2d 106

147 Conn. 72

Harold W. FERRIS v. HOTEL PICK ARMS, INC., et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 23, 1959.

David M. Wise, Stamford, with whom was Robert B. Wise, Stamford, for appellant-appellee (plaintiff).

William L. Hadden, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Daniel Pouzzner and Clarence A. Hadden, New Haven, for appellants-appellees (named defendant et al.).

George N. Foster, Bridgeport, with whom was David J. Sullivan, Jr., Bridgeport, for appellants-appellees (defendants Masi).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.

BALDWIN, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, Hotel Pick Arms, Inc., Lebis Hotel Management Corporation, Angelo Masi, and Joseph E. Masi. The defendants filed answers denying any negligence and alleging, in special defenses, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. This he, is turn, denied. He claimed to have sustained serious injuries when he was delivering oil to a hotel and slipped and fell on some refuse which the defendants Masi had left when they were removing garbage and trash from the hotel premises. The case was tried to a jury, which returned two separate writings or forms of verdict. In one, they found the issues for the plaintiff as against the defendants Masi and awarded $7,500 in damages; the issues were found in favor of the defendant hotel corporations. In the other, the jury found the issues for the plaintiff as against the defendant hotel corporations and awarded $7,500 in damages; the issues were found in favor of the defendants Masi. The court ordered both forms accepted and recorded and discharged the jury. The defendants filed timely motions to set aside the verdict. The hotel corporations also filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. Six days after the jury were discharged, the plaintiff filed a motion to summon and reassemble the jury and, or in the alternative, to correct the verdict. The court denied all these motions, judgment was entered, and all parties have appealed.

The verdict of a jury must contain an intelligible finding so that its meaning can be clearly ascertained. Kilduff v. Kalinowski, 136 Conn. 405, 409, 71 A.2d 593, and cases cited. The two forms which constituted the jury's verdict here were, in effect, two separate and inconsistent verdicts. They render the jury's decision unintelligible and incapable of supporting a judgment. Clark v. Shaw, 143 Conn. 114, 117, 119 A.2d 912; Dorfman v. Martin & Crawford Motor Co., 105 Conn. 774, 136 A. 565; Day v. Webb, 28 Conn. 140, 145; Smith v. Raymond, 1 Day 189, 192; see Potter v. Hiscox, 30 Conn. 508, 519. If the two forms of verdict represent an attempt by the jury to apportion the damages between the defendant hotel corporations on the one hand and the defendants Masi on the other, as joint tort-feasors, the verdict is invalid for that reason. Whitaker v. Tatem, 48 Conn. 520, 521; Sparrow v. Bromage, 83 Conn. 27, 28, 74 A. 1070, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 209.

The procedure which has been followed in our courts for many years for receiving, accepting and recording a verdict is outlined in Watertown Ecclesiastical Society's Appeal, 46 Conn. 230, 232. See Magoohan v. Curran, 71 Conn. 551, 554, 42 A. 656; State v. DiPietro, 120 Conn. 537, 538, 181 A. 716. It was substantially followed in the instant case. Under this procedure, the final assent of the jurors, given after the verdict has been read aloud by the clerk, accepted and ordered recorded by the court, and read aloud a second time by the clerk makes the verdict. Watertown Ecclesiastical Society's Appeal, supra, 46 Conn. 233; State v. DiPietro, supra, 120 Conn. 539, 181 A. 717. Ample opportunity is thus afforded, and designedly so, for the court, counsel, and the jurors to comprehend the verdict and to cure any misunderstanding before the final assent. In the present case, the court, after colloquy between it and counsel, addressed the jury as follows: '[I]n this case you find $7,500 against the Hotel Pick Arms, Incorporated, and Lebis Hotel Management Corporation and $7,500 against Angelo Masi and Eugene Masi. Does that mean one is $7,500 or two?' To this the foreman of the jury replied, 'Two.' The inquiry and answer resolved nothing. The court, before accepting the verdict and ordering it to be recorded, should have directed the jury, with appropriate instructions, to retire and reconsider their verdict. General Statutes, § 52-223; Wells v. Active Automobile Exchange, Inc., 99 Conn. 523, 529, 121 A. 883; Lentine v. McAvoy, 105 Conn. 528, 530, 136 A. 76; King v. Haynes, 114 Conn. 396, 397, 158 A. 915; State v. DiPietro, supra; Rosenblatt v. Berman, 143 Conn. 31, 38, 119 A.2d 118; Clark v. Shaw, supra. The motions to set aside the verdict should have been granted. The error assigned in the ruling of the court on the motion of the defendant hotel corporations for...