Flood v. Smith

• Decision Date: 05 June 1940
• Citation: 126 Conn. 644,13 A.2d 677
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FLOOD v. SMITH. BROWN v. SAME.

13 A.2d 677

126 Conn. 644

FLOOD v. SMITH.

BROWN v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 5, 1940

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.

Actions by John Flood, and by A. Brooks Brown, against Sibley C Smith, for damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant's negligence. Verdicts for the plaintiff in each case were set aside by the court upon failure of plaintiffs to file remittiturs, and the plaintiffs appeal.

Error and cases remanded with direction.

$4,100 to 70-year-old woman of education and refinement who, just prior to accident, was in good physical condition and was on road to complete recovery from nervous breakdown and removal of cancerous breast, and who went about a great deal by herself on shopping errands, and the like, was not excessive where her injuries, consisting of extensive bruises and a severe nervous shock, caused her great pain, and she steadily declined physically and mentally, up to time of trial, 1 1/2 years after accident, and became weak and irritable.

Morton E. Cole, of Hartford (Cyril Cole and A. W. Firestone, both of Hartford, on the brief), for appellants (plaintiffs).

Richard F. Berry, of Hartford (Joseph F. Berry, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellee (defendant).

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

In these actions for recovery of damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident, tried together, the jury returned verdicts that the plaintiff Flood recover $3,500 and the plaintiff Brown $4,100. Upon motions to set aside the verdicts, the court found them excessive and in the first ordered that the verdict be set aside unless the plaintiff should file a remittitur of $1,275, and in the second that the verdict be set aside unless the plaintiff should file a remittitur of $2,027. The plaintiffs have appealed.

In Flood's case the jury might reasonably have found the following facts: He was about twenty-eight years of age at the time of the accident. Some two years before the occurrence in question he had been injured in another automobile accident, suffering a fracture of the skull and an impairment of his nervous system, but at the time of the accident now in question he had substantially recovered from his previous injuries. He also had a diseased thyroid gland, which would normally affect his nervous system, make him more sensitive nervously, and tend to aggravate the results of such an injury as he suffered. The accident now in question resulted in a fracture of the shoulder blade without displacement, a back strain and shock. He remained in bed about a week and a half, then was up and around for six and a half weeks, after which he returned to his employment as a gardener at a school for the deaf, but the work he did was largely supervisory. He was not, after the accident and up to the time of the trial, more than a year and a half later, able to do heavy work such as he could do before the accident. He continued to have pain in his back and shoulder in damp weather and to be nervous, restless and irritable; he suffered from nervous indigestion, and he was unable to sleep normally. His nervous condition up to the time of the trial, had prevented him from...