Rejouis v. Greenwich Taxi, Inc.
Decision Date | 23 May 2000 |
Docket Number | (AC 18706) |
Citation | 750 A.2d 501,57 Conn. App. 778 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | ROSELANDE REJOUIS, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF JEAN CLAUDE BOITEUX) v. GREENWICH TAXI, INC., ET AL. |
Schaller, Hennessy and Dupont, JS.
Laurel Fedor, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Mark F. Katz, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).
The plaintiff, Roselande Rejouis, administratrix of the estate of the decedent, Jean Claude Boiteux, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the motion to set aside the verdict filed by the defendants Greenwich Taxi, Inc., Stamford Taxi, Inc., and Tibbetts Enterprises, Inc.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly set aside the verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the damages awarded by the jury and the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was influenced by sympathy. We agree.2
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. In September, 1988, the decedent was an independent contractor working as a taxicab driver for the defendants under a contract called the "Taxicab Lease Agreement." The parties executed another document called the "Independent Driver/Contractor Work Injury Compensation Plan" (compensation plan).3 In addition to the lease payments, the decedent made regular payments into the compensation plan.
On March 7, 1989, the decedent went to work driving his taxicab. The decedent was found murdered outside his taxicab in Stamford on the morning of March 8, 1989. At trial, Malka Shah of the office of the chief medical examiner testified that when the decedent was examined at approximately 9:30 a.m. on March 8, 1989, he had been dead for eight to ten hours. At the time of death, the decedent was thirty-four years of age.
In her amended complaint,4 the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants breached their contract with the decedent. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that the decedent's death was work related and, therefore, the defendants were obligated to pay the decedent's estate pursuant to the compensation plan. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on count one, the breach of contract claim, with respect to which the court reserved decision. After hearing the evidence, the jury found that the decedent's death was work related. The jury also found the defendants liable for damages and awarded the plaintiff $50,000 plus prejudgment interest. In response, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the verdict5 and a motion for remittitur.6 Although the trial court, determined that the decedent's death was work related, it granted the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support the damages awarded by the jury and because the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was influenced by sympathy. This appeal followed.
At the outset, we note that Novak v. Scalesse, 43 Conn. App. 94, 97-98, 681 A.2d 968, cert. granted on other grounds, 239 Conn. 925, 682 A.2d 1004 (1996) (appeal withdrawn, May 13, 1997). We will first discuss whether the trial court properly determined that the jury mistakenly applied a legal principle or could not apply a legal principle because of a lack of evidence.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Palomba v. Gray, 208 Conn. 21, 23-25, 543 A.2d 1331 (1988).
In the present case, the plaintiff claims that there was sufficient evidence to support the damages awarded by the jury and, therefore, the trial court improperly set aside the verdict. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the written terms of the contract accompanied by the evidence and testimony presented at trial, provided the jury with an adequate basis to award damages. We agree.
"A court should be especially hesitant to set aside a jury's award of damages." Zarrelli v. Barnum Festival Society, Inc., 6 Conn. App. 322, 326, 505 A.2d 25, cert. denied, 200 Conn. 801, 509 A.2d 516 (1986). Griffin v. Nationwide Moving & Storage Co., 187 Conn. 405, 420, 446 A.2d 799 (1982). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) L. F. Pace & Sons, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 9 Conn. App. 30, 41, 514 A.2d 766, cert. denied, 201 Conn. 811, 516 A.2d 886 (1986). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 46 Conn. App. 76, 79, 698 A.2d 364 (1997), aff'd, 244 Conn. 204, 707 A.2d 30 (1998). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.
...A.2d 988 (1984) (evidence on record insufficient to justify award of consequential damages for conversion); Rejouis v. Greenwich Taxi, Inc., 57 Conn. App. 778, 784-86, 750 A.2d 501 (compensation, under employment contract, for work-related death), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 906, 755 A.2d 882 3......
-
Richmond v. Ebinger
..."circumstances justify a suspicion that the jury was influenced by prejudice, corruption or partiality." Rejouis v. Greenwich Taxi, Inc., 57 Conn. App. 778, 787, 750 A.2d 501, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 906, 755 A.2d 882 (2000). "The only practical test to apply to this verdict is whether the ......
-
Ezikovich v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
... ... App. 777 quotation marks omitted.) Ann Howard's Apricots Restaurant, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 237 Conn. 209, 227-28, 676 ... ...
-
Melendez v. Spin Cycle Laundromat, LLC
...have a constitutional right to have issues of fact determined by a jury." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rejouis v. Greenwich Taxi, Inc ., 57 Conn. App. 778, 783, 750 A.2d 501, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 906, 755 A.2d 882 (2000). "The trial court possesses inherent power to set aside a ju......