Malmberg v. Lopez, 13276
Decision Date | 23 August 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 13276,13276 |
Citation | 208 Conn. 675,546 A.2d 264 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Margaret MALMBERG, Administratrix (ESTATE OF Scott C. MALMBERG) v. Ann Marie LOPEZ. |
Paul E. Pollock, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).
John D. Jessep, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before PETERS, C.J., and ARTHUR H. HEALEY, SHEA, CALLAHAN and SANTANIELLO, JJ.
The plaintiff 1 brought this action seeking damages for the wrongful death of Scott C. Malmberg. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but awarded zero damages. The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict, claiming that the award was contrary to the law and the evidence, and requested a new trial on the issue of damages only. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Court, in a split decision, found error in the court's denial of the motion to set aside the verdict and remanded the case for a hearing in damages only. Malmberg v. Lopez, 12 Conn.App. 438, 531 A.2d 161 (1987). From that ruling, the defendant filed a petition for certification to appeal which this court granted.
The facts as reported in the Appellate Court decision are as follows: "On the evening of May 15, 1982, Scott Malmberg, and his date, Ann Marie Lopez, attended a social gathering at the home of Dwight Kettlehut in Cheshire. Malmberg had driven Lopez and Doreen Mosesian to the party after picking them up at Mosesian's home in West Hartford. They arrived at the party at about 10 p.m. At the party, beer, fruit juice and vodka punch were available for consumption.
Malmberg v. Lopez, supra, at 439-40, 531 A.2d 161.
The defendant appeals claiming that the Appellate Court erred in: (1) concluding that the evidence required that the jury find that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the victim's death; 2 and (2) remanding the case for further proceedings only upon the issue of damages, allowing the jury's determination of liability in favor of the plaintiff to remain undisturbed. We reverse.
The question before this court is whether the Appellate Court erred in its attempt to interpret the jury's verdict. The Appellate Court, in its review of the trial court's refusal to set aside the verdict, concluded that the evidence supported the jury's finding of liability, but that the award of zero damages in a wrongful death action was inadequate as a matter of law. Id., 443. In contrast to the trial court's apparent analysis of the verdict as an improperly expressed defendant's verdict, 3 the Appellate Court found that the damage award "appeared to have been motivated by sympathy for the defendant." Id., at 447, 531 A.2d 161.
" 'On appeal, the conclusion of the trial court from the vantage point of the trial bench cannot be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.' " Riccio v. Abate, 176 Conn. 415, 417, 407 A.2d 1005 (1979). An appellate court cannot retry the facts of a case or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. Id., at 418, 407 A.2d 1005. The trial court's refusal to set aside a verdict is entitled to great weight and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. Id., at 417, 407 A.2d 1005. " 'If, on the evidence, the jury could reasonably have decided as they did, [the reviewing court] will not find error in the trial court's acceptance of the verdict....' " Frankovitch v. Burton, 185 Conn. 14, 15, 440 A.2d 254 (1981). " " Zarrelli v. Barnum Festival Society, Inc., 6 Conn.App. 322, 327, 505 A.2d 25, cert. denied, 200 Conn. 801, 509 A.2d 516 (1986). In determining whether a verdict does such injustice, "the only practical test is whether the total damages awarded fall somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption." Briggs v. Becker, 101 Conn. 62, 66-67, 124 A. 826 (1924); Sepe v. Deemy, 9 Conn.App. 524, 528, 520 A.2d 237 (1987). A direct showing of partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption is not required. " '[I]f the amount awarded "shocks the sense of justice" as to what is reasonable, then the inferred conclusion is that the jury was misguided in reaching its decision....' " Sepe v. Deemy, supra, at 528-29, 520 A.2d 237.
The crucial finding of the trial court was its statement that "[i]t was quite evident that the jury concluded [that] the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of proof with respect to the injury mechanism and causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the passenger's death." This finding was rejected by the Appellate Court when it concluded that the jury's verdict for the plaintiff should be upheld, but that a new hearing was required with regard to the plaintiff's claim for damages which was so low as to shock the sense of justice. In our view, however, neither the Appellate Court nor this court is in a position clearly to ascertain from the conflicting jury verdict how the members of the jury found on the underlying issue of liability. The Appellate Court therefore lacked the authority to substitute its finding on liability for that of the trial court.
Our view that the Appellate Court should have recognized the inherent ambiguity in the jury's verdict has implications for whether that court erred in limiting the further proceedings on remand to the issue of damages only. We have held that where the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for their injuries, an award limited to nominal or special damages is "manifestly inadequate" and should be set aside, "for the same rule governs upon an application for a new trial in the case of an inadequate award as in the case of an excessive award." Johnson v. Franklin, 112 Conn. 228, 229, 152 A. 64 (1930). In Johnson, this court distinguished between the case where the damages awarded are inadequate and the verdict was properly for the prevailing party and the case "[w]here the damages awarded are nominal and the verdict should have been against the prevailing party.... " (Emphasis added.) Id., at 230, 152 A. 64. In the former case the verdict should be set aside and a new trial ordered; in the latter, the verdict should stand. Id. An explicitly stated award of zero damages differs from an award of nominal damages. 4 A...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo
...Steiger v. J. S. Builders, Inc., supra, 39 Conn. App. 38. 20. We note that this is not a zero damages case. See Malmberg v. Lopez, 208 Conn. 675, 546 A.2d 264 (1988). In Malmberg, our Supreme Court held that the reviewing "court's endorsement of one plausible explanation of the verdict over......
-
DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven
...reached by the jurors on the issue of liability. Fazio v. Brown, 209 Conn. 450, 457, 551 A.2d 1227 (1988); Malmberg v. Lopez, 208 Conn. 675, 682-83, 546 A.2d 264 (1988); Johnson v. Franklin, 112 Conn. 228, 232, 152 A. (1930); Murray v. Krenz, supra. The verdict in the present case for $425,......
-
Spitzer v. Haims and Co., 13857
...trial court on a motion to set aside a verdict will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Malmberg v. Lopez, 208 Conn. 675, 679, 546 A.2d 264 (1988). "The trial court's refusal to set aside a verdict is entitled to great weight and every reasonable presumption should......
-
DuBaldo Elec., LLC v. Montagno Const., Inc.
...the control of the defendants. Essentially, the defendants invite us to retry the facts of the case. We refuse. See Malmberg v. Lopez, 208 Conn. 675, 679, 546 A.2d 264 (1988) (appellate court cannot retry facts of case). 8. Undaunted by the court's finding to the contrary, the defendants ar......