Mansfield v. City of New Haven
| Decision Date | 07 March 1978 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Florence MANSFIELD v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN. |
Alexander Winnick, New Haven, on brief, for appellant (plaintiff).
Dennis L. Pieragostini, New Haven, on brief, for appellee (defendant).
Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered as the result of a fall on an icy sidewalk. The court accepted the jury verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $20,000 and denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to set the verdict aside on the ground that it was inadequate. On the plaintiff's appeal, her only claims are that the court committed error in refusing to set aside the verdict in her favor as inadequate and in refusing an additur to the verdict.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $20,000. When the verdict was read, the judge stated to the jury that, in his opinion, "the amount of this award is certainly not one that is just, reasonable and fair compensation," and that "(t)he court feels that the verdict is extremely low, in view of what has been testified to here in open court." The court, thereupon, sent the jury back for further deliberations, telling them: After deliberating further, the jury made no change in the award of damages, and the court accepted the verdict for $20,000 and, subsequently, after argument, denied the plaintiff's motion to set it aside as inadequate.
Thomas v. Katz,171 Conn. 412, 416, 370 A.2d 978, 981. It is peculiarly the function of the jury to determine what damages a plaintiff has sustained; Birgel v Heintz, supra, 163 Conn. 34, 301 A.2d 249; and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maldonado v. Flannery
...every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mansfield v. New Haven , 174 Conn. 373, 375, 387 A.2d 699 (1978) ; accord Ashmore v. Hartford Hospital , supra, at 783, 208 A.3d 256. The trial court, having observed the trial and......
-
Ashmore v. Hartford Hosp.
...see Gorczyca v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. , 141 Conn. 701, 703, 109 A.2d 589 (1954) ; see also Mansfield v. New Haven , 174 Conn. 373, 375, 387 A.2d 699 (1978)("[i]t cannot be held, as a matter of law, that the jury's award does not fall within the necessarily uncertain li......
-
Seals v. Hickey
...to the exercise of judicial power in the trial court, and, thereafter, to meaningful judicial review. See, e.g., Mansfield v. New Haven, 174 Conn. 373, 374, 387 A.2d 699 (1978); Birgel v. Heintz, supra, 163 Conn. at 28, 301 A.2d 249; McKirdy, Admr. v. Cascio, 142 Conn. 80, 86, 111 A.2d 555 ......
-
Maldonado v. Flannery
... ... correctness." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... Mansfield v. New Haven, 174 Conn. 373, 375, ... 387 A.2d 699 (1978); accord Ashmore v. Hartford ... ...