Hook v. Dubuque
| Decision Date | 28 October 1965 |
| Citation | 214 A.2d 376,153 Conn. 113 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Richard HOOK v. Harry DUBUQUE, Sr., et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Gerald P. Dwyer, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Martin E. Gormley and Kevin T. Gormley, New Haven, for appellants (defendants).
Joseph M. Delaney, Wallingford, with whom, on the brief, was Charles G. Albom, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries sustained when the station wagon which he was driving was struck in the rear by the named defendant's automobile, veered off the road about 180 feet into a field, struck a rock and overturned. The vehicle came to rest on its roof with its wheels in the air and with the plaintiff lying on his back on the ceiling of the car after having been tossed around the interior. The case was tried to a jury on the issue of damages only, and the defendants offered no evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff to recover $7500. The defendants moved to set aside the verdict on the ground that it was excessive. The trial court denied the motion without memorandum, and the defendants have appealed from the judgment rendered on the verdict, assigning error in the denial of the motion.
We examine the evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs to determine whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Vogel v. Sylvester, 148 Conn. 666, 668, 174 A.2d 122, 96 A.L.R.2d 893. The considerations basic to this determination are established beyond the necessity of repetition. See Desmarais v. Pinto, 147 Conn. 109, 110, 157 A.2d 596; Sheiman v. Sheiman, 143 Conn. 222, 223, 121 A.2d 285.
It is apparent that the jury were confronted mainly with the problem of determining the amount which the plaintiff was entitled to recover for two years of severe and recurrent headache pain. The medical evidence included no prognosis for the future, and the amount of the verdict does not compel an assumption that the jury based their decision on the prolongation of the headaches beyond the date of the trial, as was the case in Sheiman v. Sheiman, supra, 226, 121 A.2d 285. The medical expenses were minimal, and it was clear that the plaintiff had minimized rather than exaggerated the damages by continuing to work without interruption in spite of recurrent severe physical discomfort. The jury had competent medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birgel v. Heintz
...abused its discretion in denying the motion to set the verdict aside. Bates v. Frinder, 161 Conn. 566, 287 A.2d 739; Hook v. Dubuque, 153 Conn. 113, 114, 214 A.2d 376; Vogel v. Sylvester, 148 Conn. 666, 668, 174 A.2d 122. Viewing the evidence in the case at bar, it is clear that the jury we......
-
Neal v. Shiels, Inc.
...were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption. McKirdy v. Cascio, 142 Conn. 80, 86 (111 A.2d 555); Hook v. Dubuque, 153 Conn. 113, 115 (214 A.2d 376). The plaintiff, Brenda Neal, suffered an injury to her head which resulted in a blood clot forming in the brain. This neces......
-
Zimny v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc.
...jury was misguided in reaching its decision. See generally Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 239, 332 A.2d 93 (1973); Hook v. Dubuque, 153 Conn. 113, 115, 214 A.2d 376 (1965)." (Footnote added.) Zarrelli v. Barnum Festival Society, Inc., supra, 6 Conn.App. 326-27, 505 A.2d Given the nature a......
-
Teitelman v. Bloomstein
...Our decisions have made this abundantly clear. Among recent cases see, State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 258, 224 A.2d 744; Hook v. Dubuque, 153 Conn. 113, 114, 214 A.2d 376; Chanosky v. City Building Supply Co., 152 Conn. 642, 643, 211 A.2d 141; Kingston v. Blake, 151 Conn. 714, 715, 201 A.2d ......