Hearl v. Waterbury Young Men's Christian Ass'n
| Decision Date | 04 May 1982 |
| Citation | 187 Conn. 1,444 A.2d 211 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Earnest O. HEARL, Jr. v. WATERBURY YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION et al. |
Bruce L. Levin, Milford, for appellant-cross appellee (plaintiff).
Anthony M. Fitzgerald, Waterbury, for appellee-cross appellant (named defendant).
Before PETERS, HEALEY, ARMENTANO, SHEA and WRIGHT, JJ.
The plaintiff participated in a volleyball game at a facility maintained and operated by the defendant, Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association (hereinafter, the YMCA). During the play, he and another participant made bodily contact. The plaintiff was knocked to the ground and suffered serious, permanent and disabling personal injuries. In this action brought in negligence, he sued the YMCA, two of its employees who were management personnel at the facility, and the other participant. Subsequent to the action and prior to trial, the claim against the other participant was settled on payment of $25,000. The plaintiff properly and effectively preserved his rights against the remaining defendants, and the other participant was dropped as a party. On a trial to a jury a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was rendered against the YMCA alone, there being defendants' verdicts with respect to each of the management individuals.
The jury assessed the plaintiff's damages at $125,000. It found the plaintiff forty percent negligent and the YMCA sixty percent negligent. By application of the doctrine of comparative negligence, the award was reduced by $50,000, resulting in a verdict of $75,000. Thereupon, the trial court, relying on General Statutes § 52-216a, further reduced the jury verdict by the $25,000 the plaintiff had already received in settlement, resulting in a net verdict of $50,000.
Subsequently the trial court, finding that "the plaintiff ha[d] not borne his burden of removing the matter from 'the realm of surmise, guess, conjecture and speculation,' " set aside the verdict of the jury and rendered judgment for the defendant YMCA notwithstanding the verdict. The plaintiff appeals this action of the court.
"The ruling of the trial court on a motion to set aside a verdict is entitled to great weight." Darling v. Burrone Bros., Inc., 162 Conn. 187, 200, 292 A.2d 912 (1972); see Marko v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 169 Conn. 550, 558-59, 364 A.2d 217 (1975). The trial judge can sense the atmosphere of a trial and has an excellent vantage point for evaluating the factors that may have brought the jury to its verdict. Butler v. Steck, 146 Conn. 114, 119, 148 A.2d 246 (1959). The trial judge found that the jury verdict was unsupported by the evidence and motivated by sympathy for the plaintiff.
The crux of the plaintiff's allegations is that the YMCA was negligent in not providing adequate supervision of the volleyball tournament during which the plaintiff sustained injury. The plaintiff claims that the jury reasonably found the following facts. On August 3, 1975 the YMCA sponsored a volleyball tournament at its Mataucha Family Center. In prior years a YMCA staff member had supervised the tournament. In 1975, no supervision was provided. It was a hot and humid day. Alcoholic beverages were consumed with the knowledge of the YMCA. As the tournament progressed, play became more competitive and heated. The final game, in which the plaintiff was injured, was characterized as a "blood game." In the course of that final game, another participant collided with the plaintiff in mid-air. The plaintiff was knocked to the ground and suffered a severe and permanent disabling injury.
In order for the plaintiff to recover in a negligence action, he must establish a causal connection between his injury and the defendant's breach of duty. "The test is whether the harm which occurred was of the same general nature as the foreseeable risk created by the defendant's negligence." Merhi v. Becker, 164 Conn. 516, 521, 325 A.2d 270 (1973); Miranti v. Brookside Shopping Center, Inc., 159 Conn. 24, 30, 266 A.2d 370 (1969); Kirchner v. Yale University, 150 Conn. 623, 627-28, 192 A.2d 641 (1963).
We agree with the trial court that any failure by the YMCA to provide supervision of the volleyball game was not a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's harm. "In Connecticut, the test of proximate cause is whether the defendant's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's injuries." Nelson v. Steffens, 170 Conn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paige v. St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp.
...the defendant's conduct legally caused the injuries. Wu v. Fairfield, 204 Conn. 435, 438, 528 A.2d 364 (1987); Hearl v. Waterbury YMCA, 187 Conn. 1, 4, 444 A.2d 211 (1982); W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th Ed.) § 41, p. 263. As we observed in Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355, 359, 436 A.2d ......
-
Paige v. Saint Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp., 15866
...action is the establishment of the defendant's conduct as a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Hearl v. Waterbury Young Men's Christian Assn., 187 Conn. 1, 4, 444 A.2d 211 (1982); W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th Ed.1984) § 41, p. 263. "The causal relation between the defendant's ......
-
Gonzalez v. University System of New Hampshire, No. 451217 (CT 1/28/2005)
...it is mere speculation to say that had she done so she would have prevented the plaintiff's injury. See Hearl v. Waterbury YMCA, 187 Conn. 1, 444 A.2d 211 (1982). There is no genuine issue of material fact that any such failure on her part to supervise the club's activities was not a cause ......
-
Beckenstein v. Potter and Carrier, Inc.
...and has an excellent vantage point for evaluating the factors that may have brought the jury to its verdict." Hearl v. Waterbury YMCA, 187 Conn. 1, 3, 444 A.2d 211 (1982). Accordingly, its determination should be given As early as 1964 Potter & Carrier and GAF entered into an "Approved Roof......