Gajewski v. Pavelo
Decision Date | 28 June 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 14843,14843 |
Citation | 643 A.2d 1276,229 Conn. 829 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Maria GAJEWSKI et al. v. Arthur PAVELO et al. |
Rosalind J. Koskoff, with whom were Michael P. Koskoff and, on the brief, Richard A. Fuchs, Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, Associate City Atty., for appellees (defendant city of Bridgeport et al.).
James E. Coyne, with whom, on the brief was Colleen D. Fries, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant Utica Radiator Corp.).
Before CALLAHAN, BORDEN, BERDON, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The dispositive issue of this appeal is the applicability of the general verdict rule. The jury's handwritten verdict stated that the plaintiffs' claims were "inconclusive," but did not specifically mention the defendants' special defense. On the basis of this verdict, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, which applied the general verdict rule and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Gajewski v. Pavelo, 32 Conn.App. 373, 629 A.2d 465 (1993). We granted the plaintiffs' petition for certification to appeal. 1 We now reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court recounted the following facts and procedural history: "The plaintiffs' [Maria Gajewski, Jan Gajewski and Janusz Gajewski] amended complaint consisted of ten counts, 2 essentially involving three causes of action, a product liability claim against Utica Radiator Corporation (Utica) arising out of its manufacture of a gas fired boiler, a negligence claim against two employees of the city of Bridgeport, Joseph Savino and Guido Vagnini, for failure to inspect or to make reasonable efforts to inspect the installation of the boiler, and an indemnification claim against the city of Bridgeport pursuant to General Statutes § 7-465. Utica denied that its gas fired boiler filled the Gajewski residence with dangerous and toxic levels of carbon monoxide that allegedly caused serious, painful and permanent injuries to the plaintiffs. Utica also denied that it introduced its boilers into the stream of commerce, that its products were expected to reach consumers without substantial change, and that one of its boilers had reached the plaintiffs' household without substantial change. Utica denied that its boiler was a defective and unreasonably dangerous product and also denied that it had failed to provide proper instructions for installation, had failed to warn the plaintiffs adequately of various dangers arising from use of the boiler and had failed to design a safe product. Further, Utica denied that the plaintiffs' injuries were proximately caused by its allegedly defective gas boiler. Utica's answer also raised two special defenses, one claiming that any injuries sustained by the plaintiffs were caused by their own negligence and carelessness, and the other claiming that the amount of any verdict against Utica should be reduced by any amounts paid or agreed to be paid by any present or prior defendants to the action. Utica filed a cross claim against the Southern Connecticut Gas Company and the city of Bridgeport for indemnification and filed a cross claim against all the codefendants for contribution pursuant to General Statutes § 52-572o. 3 Southern Connecticut Gas Company denied all cross claims by Utica.
Gajewski v. Pavelo, supra, 32 Conn.App. 375-79, 629 A.2d 465.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the jury instructions were so confusing that they provided inadequate guidance to the jury. The defendants contended that the general verdict rule precluded review of the plaintiffs' claims, and also, inter alia, that the jury instructions were proper. Id., 375.
The Appellate Court agreed that the general verdict rule applied, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The general verdict rule provides that if a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party. See, e.g., Curry v. Burns, 225 Conn. 782, 786, 626 A.2d 719 (1993); Stone v. Bastarache, 188 Conn. 201, 204, 449 A.2d 142 (1982). The Appellate Court concluded that the general verdict rule applied because the defendants had denied the plaintiffs' cause of action and pleaded special defenses, 7 and because the plaintiffs' failure to object to jury deliberation without interrogatories was the functional equivalent of a failure to request interrogatories. Gajewski v. Pavelo, supra, 32 Conn.App. 381-82, 629 A.2d 465. In interpreting the verdict, the Appellate Court reasoned: "the jury could have found for the defendants because it either concluded that no one of the defendants was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries or that the plaintiffs were contributorily negligent in excess of 50 percent in the actions grounded in negligence or that the comparative responsibility provisions of General Statutes § 52-572o were inapplicable because the plaintiffs were totally responsible for their injuries." Id., at 383, 629 A.2d 465. Applying the general verdict rule, the Appellate Court concluded that the verdict for each defendant need not be disturbed and that, therefore, it was not necessary to reach the other claims of error relating to the jury charge. Id., 383, 629 A.2d 465. This appeal followed.
The plaintiffs claim that the general verdict rule does not apply in the circumstances of this case because the jury stated the basis for its verdict, just as if an appropriate interrogatory had been posed. We agree.
Under the general verdict rule, "if a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party." Curry v. Burns, supra, 225 Conn. at 786, 626 A.2d 719. Thus, in a case in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Myrick v. Jack A. Halprin, Inc.
... ... stand; only if every ground is improper does the verdict ... fall.’ Gajewski v. Pavelo, 229 Conn. 829, 836, 643 ... A.2d 1276 (1994)." Perez v. Cumba, 138 ... Conn.App. 351, 361-62, 51 A.3d 1156 (2012) ... ...
-
Macdermid, Inc. v. Leonetti
...potentially did not depend upon the trial errors claimed by the appellant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gajewski v. Pavelo , 229 Conn. 829, 836, 643 A.2d 1276 (1994)."This court has held that the general verdict rule applies to the following five situations: (1) denial of separate c......
-
Gajewski v. Pavelo
...and FOTI and LAVERY, JJ. DUPONT, Chief Judge. This matter is currently before us on remand from our Supreme Court. Gajewski v. Pavelo, 229 Conn. 829, 643 A.2d 1276 (1994). When we first heard this case, we applied the general verdict rule and affirmed a judgment for the defendants that foll......
-
Springhill Hosps. v. West
... ... that it will be discernible from the verdict whether the jury ... found the unsupported theory proved. Cf. Gaiewski v ... Pavelo , 229 Conn. 829, 836, 643 A.2d 1276, 1279 (1994) ... ('"[I]f a jury renders a general verdict for one ... party, and no party requests ... ...
-
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
...796 (1994). 217. National Elevator Indust Pension, Welfare and Educational Funds v. Scrivani, 229 Conn. 817, 644 A.2d 327 (1994). 218. 229 Conn. 829, 643 A.2d 1276 (1994). 219. 32 Conn. App. 373, 629 A.2d 465 (1993). 220. Id. The case has since been decided on remand, 36 Conn. App. 601 (199......
-
1995 Connecticut Tort Law Review
...27, 670 A.2d 319 (1996). The case, as reported at 36 Conn.App- 601, was back before the Appellate Court on remand from the Supreme Court, 229 Conn. 829 (1994), which haa reversedthe Court's earlier application of the general verdict rule. 93. Id. at 608. In particular, the plaintiffs claime......
-
1993 Connecticut Tort Law Review
...373,629 AN 465 (1993), rev'd 229 Conn. 829, A.2d (1994). 157. Id. at 378. 158. Id. at 381. 159. 227 Conn. 926, 632 A.2d 704 (1993) 160. 229 Conn. 829, A.2d 161. Id. at 836-38. 162. 31 Conn.App. 703,626 A.2d 829 (1993), rev'd 230 Conn. 175 (19M). 163. The trial court did submit three defenda......