Myrick v. Jack A. Halprin, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | CV105033401S |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Rochelle MYRICK, Administratrix of the Estate of Ensley E. Myrick and Tara Reed, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph E. Reed and Anthony Perelli v. JACK A. HALPRIN, INC. et al. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The plaintiffs, Rochelle Myrick, Administratrix of the Estate of Ensley E. Myrick, Tara Reed, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph E. Reed, and Anthony Perrelli, commenced this wrongful death and negligent action against the defendants, Jack A Halprin, Inc. (Halprin) and Catwalk, LLC (Catwalk), based upon premises liability and negligent security. Evidence in this case was presented over a period of two weeks commencing on February 26, 2018, and concluding on March 9, 2018. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case on March 2, 2018, both defendants, moved for a directed verdict, which after argument on that same date, the court denied. On March 9 2018, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant, Jack A. Halprin, Inc., and found the defendant, Halprin 100% solely liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and deaths. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant Catwalk, LLC. The jury awarded economic damages in the amount of $18, 830.59 to the estate of Ensley Myrick; $5, 715 to the estate of Joseph Reed; and $1002 to Anthony Perelli. The economic damages awarded to Myrick and Reed represent exactly all of their claimed associated medical and funeral/burial expenses as a result of the accident, and the amount of economic damages awarded to, Perelli represent all of his claimed medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident. Although there was evidence submitted that both Myrick and Reed at the time of their deaths were 27 and 25 years old respectively, with life expectancies of 52.4 and 54.3 years, and that both were gainfully employed at the time of death, the jury did not award damages for their lost wages or for the loss of future income/loss of earning capacity. Anthony Perelli did not make a claim for lost wages or loss of earning capacity. With respect to non-economic damages, the jury awarded Myrick and Reed each, $25, 000 and awarded Anthony Perelli, $50, 000. The court accepted the verdicts.[1]
Pursuant to Practice Book §§ 16-37[2] and 16-35[3] and General Statutes § 52-228b, [4] the defendant, Halprin, filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion to set aside the verdict. As grounds for both motions, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove negligence on the part of Halprin or that any negligence was the proximate cause of the claimed deaths and injuries of the plaintiffs’ decedents and the plaintiff Perelli. More specifically, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish any breach of a standard of care or duty by Halprin; the evidence was insufficient to establish that the intentional criminal acts committed by Markease Hill, which resulted in the deaths of Myrick and Reed and injuries to Perelli were foreseeable. The defendant further argues that even if there was evidence of negligence, there was no credible evidence of causation presented to the jury, including the evidence of plaintiff’s expert, Neal Sullivan.
In addition to its insufficiency of evidence on the issue of negligence and causation, ground, the defendant argues in its motion to set aside, that the jury’s verdict is contrary to the law as charged; is contrary to the weight of the evidence; there were evidentiary errors by the trial court in ruling on evidence which include: a. preclusion of the defendant’s expert witness, toxicologist, Dr. Robert H. Powers; preclusion of toxicology records; ruling on the admissibility of prior trial testimony of witness Andrew Guarino; admission of redacted affidavit of defendant Martin Halprin from the federal court action; limitation of defendant’s witnesses by side bar conference; admission of evidence of Catwalk, LLC’s dissolution.
The plaintiffs filed an objection to the motions. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant has provided nothing to substantiate its claim that the verdict rendered by the jury was contrary to the law as charged or that the jury misapplied the law. The plaintiff further points out that the defendant was given every opportunity by the court to submit interrogatories to the jury and it elected not to do so, and thus, the defendant’s claim is based on nothing more than conjecture and surmise and does not constitute a valid basis to set aside the verdict.
The plaintiffs further argue that there is no substantiation for the claim that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, since the jury was free to accept or reject any evidence or testimony presented, and obviously chose to reject that offered by the defendant. As to the defendant’s claimed errors by the trial court in ruling on evidence, the plaintiffs argue that the court’s rulings on evidence were correct and in accordance with the Connecticut Code of Evidence. The court heard oral argument on the motions on April 16, 2018.[5]
Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 303 Conn. 276, 280, 32 A.3d 318 (2011).
In considering the defendant’s motions for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict and to set aside the verdict, the court is guided by appellate authority. "Directed verdicts are disfavored because [l]itigants have a constitutional right to have factual issues resolved by the jury ..." Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Calco Construction and Development Co., 318 Conn. 847, 862, 124 A.3d 847 (2015). The court may "render judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ... only if [it] find[s] that the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached their conclusion ... The question is not whether [the court] would have arrived at the same verdict, but whether, when viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence supports the jury’s determination ... A trial court may only grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict if the jury reasonably and legally could not have reached any other conclusion; ... and must deny such a motion where it is apparent that there was some evidence upon which the jury might reasonably reach [its] conclusion ..." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 862-63.
"In reviewing the trial court’s decision to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff ... While it is the jury’s right to draw logical deductions and make reasonable inferences from the facts proven ... it may not resort to mere conjecture and speculation ... The standard of review governing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same because a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not a new motion, but the renewal of a motion for a directed verdict." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303, 311-12, 101 A.3d 249 (2014). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152, 159, 943 A.2d 391 (2008).
Based on the evidence presented, the jury could have reasonably found the following facts. On the evening of June 10, 2008 the decedents, Ensley Myrick, Joseph Reed, the plaintiff, Anthony Perelli and Andrew Guarino met up at the Fireside Café in New Haven, Connecticut. All four had been drinking while at the Fireside Café. Perelli described himself as being "a little drunk." At approximately 1:00 a.m. all four left the Fireside Café and proceeded to the Catwalk, a strip club located at 323 East Street in New Haven, Connecticut. Myrick and Reed were in Myrick’s vehicle and Perrelli and Guarino were in Guarino’s vehicle. Reed was a passenger in Myrick’s vehicle and Perelli was a passenger in Guarino’s vehicle. Both Myrick and Guarino parked in the parking lot of the Catwalk, also located on East Street, just south of the building where Catwalk is located. Myrick and Reed parked one spot over from Guarino and Perelli. At the time the four arrived at the club, there was not much activity inside the club. Neither of the four had anything to drink while at the Catwalk. There were several individuals in the parking lot and Perelli noticed that there were people hanging out on East Street in front of the club. Around 1:30 a.m. on June 11, 2008, Myrick, Reed, Perelli and Guarino proceeded to leave the Catwalk. Myrick, Reed and Guarino walked out ahead of Perelli and proceeded to their cars, because Perelli had to use the restroom. About two to three minutes after Myrick, Reed and Guarino proceeded outside, Perelli left out of the strip club and proceeded to the parking...
To continue reading
Request your trial