Peterson v. Sypher
Decision Date | 19 January 1972 |
Citation | 295 A.2d 560,162 Conn. 616 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Martin R. PETERSON et al. v. Irving SYPHER. |
Frank DeNezzo, Hartford, with whom was Paul B. Groobert, Manchester, for appellant (defendant).
Herbert A. Lane, Willimantic, with whom, on the brief, was Jerome A. Rosen, and Daniel K. Lamont, Willimantic, for appellees (plaintiffs).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and THIM, RYAN, SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, JJ.
On February 23, 1964, the plaintiff Gustave R. Peterson, while operating his automobile, was involved in a collision with a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant. The plaintiff Martin R. Peterson is a minor son of Gustave and was a passenger in the Peterson vehicle at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs instituted an action in the Superior Court, alleging that the defendant had operated his vehicle in a negligent manner, thereby causing the accident. The action was tried to a jury which awarded damages in the amount of $50,000 to Gustave and $7500 to his son Martin. The defendant's motion to set aside the verdicts as being excessive was denied by the court. 1 The court, however, held that the verdict in favor of Gustave was not justified and ordered a remittitur of $12,000, which the plaintiff filed. From the judgment in the amount of $38,000 rendered in favor of Gustave R. Peterson, the defendant has appealed. The sole issue before this court is whether the reduced verdict of $38,000 is excessive.
We have held that the ruling of a trial court on a motion to set aside a verdict as being excessive is entitled to great weight; Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc., 159 Conn. 576, 585, 271 A.2d 94; Vogel v. Sylvester, 148 Conn. 666, 669, 174 A.2d 122; and we find that the following excerpts from the memorandum of decision are particularly relevant: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamill v. Neikind
...stated in its memorandum of decision. Gary Excavating, Inc. v. North Haven, 164 Conn. 119, 121, 318 A.2d 84; see Peterson v. Sypher, 162 Conn. 616, 617, 295 A.2d 560. Excerpts from the court's denial of the motion clearly demonstrate the propriety of its conclusion that, in view of the fact......
-
Fronczek v. Della Bitta-Bassola, Inc.
...719, 158 A.2d 745; Butler v. Steck, 146 Conn. 114, 117, 148 A.2d 246. The court's action is entitled to great weight; Peterson v. Sypher, 162 Conn. 616, 617, 295 A.2d 560; Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc., 159 Conn. 576, 583, 271 A.2d 94; and in determining whether a court has abused it......
-
Armstrong v. Garneau
...which must govern our consideration of claims that a trial court should have set aside a verdict as excessive. See Peterson v. Sypher, 162 Conn. 616, 295 A.2d 560; Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc., 159 Conn. 576, 583, 271 A.2d 94. '(D)enial by the trial court of a motion to set aside a ......