Micalizzi v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 08 May 2018
• Docket Number: AC 38683
• Citation: 181 Conn.App. 671,188 A.3d 159
• Parties: Robin MICALIZZI v. Kenneth STEWART
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

181 Conn.App. 671

188 A.3d 159

Robin MICALIZZI

v.Kenneth STEWART

AC 38683

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 16, 2017

Officially released May 8, 2018

Tracey Lane Russso, with whom, on the brief, was Gerard McEnery, Milford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Michael T. Vitali, North Haven, for the appellee (defendant).

DiPentima, C.J., and Sheldon and Norcott, Js.

DiPENTIMA, C.J.

In this personal injury action arising from an automobile collision, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, Robin Micalizzi, and awarded her all of her claimed economic damages but zero noneconomic damages. She filed a motion to set aside the verdict and, in the alternative, for an additur on the ground that she also was entitled to noneconomic damages. The trial court denied that motion, and the plaintiff appealed from that denial. She claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) refusing to set aside the verdict or to order an additur because the jury's verdict was inconsistent and inadequate, and (2) refusing to set aside the verdict because of procedural irregularities. We do not agree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. On May 10, 2013, at the intersection of North Bishop and Grandfield Avenues in Bridgeport, a vehicle operated by the defendant, Kenneth Stewart, struck the vehicle the plaintiff was operating. The plaintiff claimed that the collision caused a strain/sprain of her cervical spine, permanent damage to her left hand and recurring, severe headaches. She consulted medical professionals and received some treatment for her alleged injuries, incurring a total of $7,325 in medical expenses.

On September 11, 2013, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, alleging that his negligence, statutory recklessness, and common-law recklessness had caused her aforementioned injuries.¹ On November 3 and 4, 2015, the matter was tried to a jury. On November 6, 2015, the jury returned a plaintiff's verdict, finding the defendant 65 percent responsible for the plaintiff's injuries and awarding the plaintiff that proportion of her total claimed economic damages. The jury did not award the plaintiff any noneconomic damages. The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict and, in the alternative, for an additur. After a hearing, the court orally denied the plaintiff's motion, and the plaintiff appealed from that denial.² Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The plaintiff first claims that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside the verdict or to order an additur. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that (1) the court should have set aside the verdict because the award of zero noneconomic damages conflicts with the jury's answers to the interrogatories and (2) the court should have set aside the verdict or ordered an additur because the award was inadequate as a matter of law. We disagree.

We begin with the standard that governs our review. "The trial court's refusal to set aside the verdict or to order an additur is entitled to great weight and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. In reviewing the action of the trial court in denying the motions for additur and to set aside the verdict, our primary concern is to determine whether the court abused its discretion and we decide only whether, on the evidence presented, the jury could fairly reach the verdict [it] did. The trial court's decision is significant because the trial judge has had the same opportunity as the jury to view the witnesses, to assess their credibility and to determine the weight that should be given to their evidence. Moreover, the trial judge can gauge the tenor of the trial, as we, on the written record, cannot, and can detect those factors, if any, that could improperly have influenced the jury.... The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls 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 [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption....

"[A]lthough the trial court has a broad legal discretion in this area, it is not without its limits. Because in setting aside a verdict the court has deprived a litigant in whose favor the verdict has been rendered of his constitutional right to have disputed issues of fact determined by a jury ... the court's action cannot be reviewed in a vacuum. The evidential underpinnings of the verdict itself must be examined.... [I]f there is a reasonable basis in the evidence for the jury's verdict, unless there is a mistake in law or some other valid basis for upsetting the result other than a difference of opinion regarding the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, the trial court should let the jury work [its] will." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DeEsso v. Litzie , 172 Conn. App. 787, 795–96, 163 A.3d 55, cert. denied, 326 Conn. 913, 173 A.3d 389 (2017).

A

We first address the plaintiff's contention that the court should have set aside the verdict because the award of zero noneconomic damages conflicted with the jury's answers to the interrogatories she requested and, thus, was fatally inconsistent. We conclude that the verdict and the responses to the interrogatories were not necessarily inconsistent.

A party may request that the court submit interrogatories to the jury pursuant to Practice Book § 16–18.³ Interrogatories provide a breakdown of the components of the jury's award and of the factors underlying the jury's ultimate view of the evidence. DeEsso v. Litzie , supra, 172 Conn. App. at 797, 163 A.3d 55 ; Caruso v. Quickie Cab Co. , 48 Conn. App. 459, 462, 709 A.2d 1154 (1998) ; Marchetti v. Ramirez , 40 Conn. App. 740, 746, 673 A.2d 567 (1996), aff'd, 240 Conn. 49, 688 A.2d 1325 (1997). In considering the plaintiff's claim, we note that "[i]t is not the function of a court to search the record for conflicting answers in order to take the case away from the jury on a theory that gives equal support to inconsistent and uncertain inferences. When a claim is made that the jury's answers to interrogatories in returning a verdict are inconsistent, the court has the duty to attempt to harmonize the answers." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. , 242 Conn. 255, 270, 698 A.2d 838 (1997) ; Froom Development Corp. v. Developers Realty, Inc. , 114 Conn. App. 618, 626–27, 972 A.2d 239, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 922, 980 A.2d 909 (2009).

Only if a court cannot harmonize the verdict and the interrogatories may it refuse to accept such verdict. Rendahl v. Peluso , 173 Conn. App. 66, 95–96, 162 A.3d 1 (2017). "A verdict is not defective as a matter of law as long as it contains an intelligible finding so that its meaning is clear.... A verdict will be deemed intelligible if it clearly manifests the intent of the jury." Sigular v. Gilson , 141 Conn. App. 581, 587, 62 A.3d 564, cert. granted, 308 Conn. 948, 67 A.3d 291 (2013) (appeal withdrawn Aug. 1, 2013).

"The role of an appellate court where an appellant seeks a judgment contrary to a general verdict on the basis of the jury's allegedly inconsistent answers to ... interrogatories is extremely limited.... To justify the entry of a judgment contrary to a general verdict upon the basis of answers to interrogatories, those answers must be such in themselves as conclusively to show that as [a] matter of law judgment could only be rendered for the party against whom the general verdict was found; they must [negate] every reasonable hypothesis as to the situation provable under the issues made by the pleadings; and in determining that, the court may consider only the issues framed by the pleadings, the general verdict and the interrogatories, with the answers made to them, without resort to the evidence offered at the trial." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. , supra, 242 Conn. at 269–70, 698 A.2d 838 ; Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc. , 172 Conn. App. 38, 72, 158 A.3d 787, cert. granted, 325 Conn. 927, 169 A.3d 232 (2017) ; Froom Development Corp. v. Developers Realty, Inc. , supra, 114 Conn. App. at 626–27, 972 A.2d 239.

In this case, in its answers to the interrogatories, the jury specifically found that (1) the defendant violated both General Statutes §§ 14–218a⁴ and 14–222, 5 (2) the defendant violated both statutes "with reckless disregard"⁶ and (3) the defendant's violation of such statutes with reckless disregard proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries, but that (4) the plaintiff was not entitled to double or treble damages. In addition, the jury found that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. Ultimately, the jury determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover 65 percent of $7,325, the latter sum representing her claimed and proven economic damages, but no noneconomic damages. Thus, the jury's total award was $4,761.25.

It is the plaintiff's contention that, notwithstanding its award of noneconomic damages, the jury found that she had necessarily endured pain and suffering, therefore entitling her to noneconomic damages. Specifically, the plaintiff directs our attention to the third interrogatory, which reads: "Do you find that the violation of either or both statutes ‘with reckless disregard,’ was the proximate cause (substantial factor) of the injuries sustained by [the plaintiff]?"⁷ The jury answered this interrogatory in the affirmative. The plaintiff contends that the phrase "injuries sustained by [the plaintiff]" implies a subordinate finding that there were, in fact, noneconomic damages.⁸ Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that were we to "[break] down the plain meaning of the terms used by the [j]ury in [its] findings," we would have to conclude ...