DocketNumber: No. CV 98-0408537 S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6956
Judges: ARNOLD, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/29/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The case was tried to the jury over a four day period. Following the conclusion of evidence, the court charged the jury on the law of negligence. Acting upon an agreement of counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant, the court provided the jury with a verdict from containing ten interrogatories. The verdict form and interrogatories was in a form prepared by the defendant and agreed upon by the plaintiff, without objection. The jury, after deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendant and in doing so, answered interrogatories 1 through 4. Due to the instructions contained in the interrogatories, the jury, in entering a defendant's verdict, was not required to proceed further to answer the remaining interrogatories 5 through 10. The entire verdict form containing interrogatories 1 through 10 are reproduced and attached herein as Appendix A. However, for the purposes of deciding the motion to set aside the verdict, only interrogatories 1 through 4 need to be discussed.
Interrogatories 1 through 4 were answered as follows:
1. Has the plaintiff proven the existence of a dangerous condition at the Wal-Mart Store in Wallingford, Connecticut on August 6, 1997?
Answer: Yes
If you answered No to Question 1, please proceed to the end of this form, sign it and return it to the court. If you answered Yes to Question 1, please proceed to Question 2.
2. Did you find that Wal-Mart had actual notice of the defective or dangerous condition?
Answer: No CT Page 6958
If you answered No to Question 2, please proceed to Question 3. If you answered Yes to Question 2, please proceed to Question 4.
3. Do you find that Wal-Mart had constructive notice of the defective or dangerous condition?
Answer: Yes
If you answered No to Question 3, please proceed to the end of this form, sign it and return it to the Court. Do not answer any further questions. If you answered Yes to Question 3, please proceed to Question 4.
4. Do you find that Wal-Mart was negligent in the maintenance and care of the floors at the Wallingford, Connecticut store on August 6, 1997?
Answer: No
If you answered No to Question 4, please proceed to the end of this form, sign it and return it to the court. If you answered Yes to Question 4, please proceed to Question 5.
The jury having answered "no" to Question 4 did not proceed to Question 5, regarding whether any negligence found by Wal-Mart was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff claims that the verdict must be set aside because the jury's answer to Question 4 is inconsistent with its answers to Questions 1 and 3, in that it is inconsistent with premises liability law.
The trial court must view the evidence offered at trial in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Gaudio v. Grfffin HealthServices,
There are serious constitutional issues posed by setting aside a jury verdict. This is so because litigants have a constitutional right to have issues of fact decided by the jury. A trial court's decision to set aside a jury verdict can implicate a party's constitutional right to a trial by CT Page 6959 jury. Young v. Data Switch Corp.,
"However, it is the court's duty to set aside the verdict when it finds that "it does manifest injustice, and is . . . palpably against the evidence . . ." State v. Chin Lung,
"Any motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be granted except on substantial grounds." Burrv. Lichtenstein,
The standard for a trial court to review a jury's responses to interrogatories also is particularly narrow. The role of the court is not "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. . . ." Treglia v. Zanesky,
Connecticut law requires only that a possessor of land, such as Wal-Mart, use reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition under all of the circumstances. Sauro v. Arena Co., supra 170. Reasonable care means such care as would be used by a reasonably prudent person, placed in a position similar to the positions in which the parties found themselves on August 6, 1997. Hartman v. Black DeckerM.G. Co.,
The jury concluded that Wal-Mart was not negligent even though it had constructive notice of a defective condition because it also concluded that Wal-Mart had exercised reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The court has reviewed its charge and concludes that based on the charge and the evidence at trial, that the jury could reasonably and properly conclude that Wal-Mart used reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Wal-Mart presented a substantial amount of evidence establishing that it took reasonable steps to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. It presented evidence as to the responsibilities of its employees to keep a constant lookout for unsafe or defective conditions. It presented evidence of its floor maintenance procedures for its high traffic retail stores. Thirdly, the jury heard testimony that there were no other accidents of a similar nature in any other Wal-Mart store.
The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that Wal-Mart did not adhere to the requisite standard of care and never offered evidence of what the requisite standard of care, or the industry standard of care was on August 6, 1997. The plaintiff, as evidenced by the jury's answers to Questions 1 and 3, has established the presence of a defect and the defendant's constructive notice of the defect. However, the jury additionally must find that Wal-Mart failed to exercise due care, meaning reasonable care to keep the property reasonably safe under the circumstances to support a finding of negligence. This, the jury did not do. The jury, in light of the evidence and the jury charge could have reasonably and legally reached their conclusion. Fleming v. Garnett, supra 83. The role of the court is not "to search for conflicting answers in order to take the case away from the jury." Treglia v. Zanesky, supra 460. The court cannot say that on the basis of the answers to the interrogatories that the answers are so conclusive that as a matter of law judgment could only be rendered for the plaintiff.
In her request to charge, the plaintiff submitted the following proposed charge:
"You have heard evidence in this case that the floor where the plaintiff was caused to fall was slippery. It is the plaintiffs further claim that this slippery floor condition constitutes the defect that caused the plaintiff's injuries. If you determine that the defendant Wal-Mart was negligent in maintaining the floor in a slippery condition, irrespective of the cause of the slipperiness, you can infer from this evidence that the defendant failed to use reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe for business visitors, such as the plaintiff and, thus, was negligent." Gray v. Fitzgerald and Platt, Inc.,
144 Conn. 57 ,59 (1956).
A review of the court's jury charge reveals that the court used virtually verbatim language, omitting only the "irrespective of the cause of slipperiness" language. Connecticut law requires that to render the retailer-possessor of premises liable, the defendant must have had actual or constructive notice of a specific defective condition. Pollack v.Gampel,
Accordingly, the motion to set aside the jury verdict of November 26, 2001, is hereby denied.
The Court
By: Arnold, J
Gray v. Fitzgerald & Platt, Inc. , 144 Conn. 57 ( 1956 )
Sauro v. Arena Co. , 171 Conn. 168 ( 1976 )
Gosselin v. Perry , 166 Conn. 152 ( 1974 )
Magnon v. Glickman , 185 Conn. 234 ( 1981 )
Barbieri v. Taylor , 37 Conn. Super. Ct. 1 ( 1980 )
Mulcahy v. Larson , 130 Conn. 112 ( 1943 )
Drible v. Village Improvement Co. , 123 Conn. 20 ( 1937 )
Queen v. Gagliola , 162 Conn. 164 ( 1972 )
Pollack v. Gampel , 163 Conn. 462 ( 1972 )
Bambus v. Bridgeport Gas Co. , 148 Conn. 167 ( 1961 )
Herb v. Kerr , 190 Conn. 136 ( 1983 )
Kalleher v. Orr , 183 Conn. 125 ( 1981 )
Birgel v. Heintz , 163 Conn. 23 ( 1972 )
Jacobs v. Goodspeed , 180 Conn. 415 ( 1980 )
Geoghegan v. Fox Co., Inc. , 104 Conn. 129 ( 1926 )
State v. Chin Lung , 106 Conn. 701 ( 1927 )
Camp v. Booth , 160 Conn. 10 ( 1970 )
Waldron v. Raccio , 166 Conn. 608 ( 1974 )