DocketNumber: No. CV89 03 03 90S, CV90 03 20 30S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3281
Judges: RUSH, J.
Filed Date: 3/2/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
One file involves a lawsuit brought by Sobolisky against Beckert and American. The second file involves a lawsuit brought by Angelo Cardella ("Cardella"), who was a passenger on the motorcycle, against Beckert, American, Sobolisky and Scianna. The two cases were tried together and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Beckert and American in the lawsuit brought by Sobolisky and returned a verdict in favor of Cardella against Beckert, American, Sobolisky and Scianna. The defendant Scianna, in the case brought by Cardella, had been defaulted prior to trial and did not appear to defend the action. In the first case, the plaintiff Sobolisky has filed a Motion to Set Aside the defendant verdict rendered against him in favor of the defendants Beckert and American. In the second case brought by Cardella, the defendants Beckert and American, as well as the defendant Sobolisky, who was represented by separate counsel, have filed motions to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff Cardella. CT Page 3282
Sobolisky has moved to set aside the verdict against him on the grounds that (1) the verdict was contrary to the evidence; (2) the verdict form submitted in the Cardella case listed Scianna and Sobolisky on the same line; (3) the court failed to grant a mistrial; and (4) juror misconduct occurred.
In his claim that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, the plaintiff Sobolisky relies upon the case of Mahoney v. Beatman,
The second ground advanced by the plaintiff Sobolisky to set aside the verdict is based upon the fact that Scianna and Sobolisky were listed on the same line on the verdict form submitted to the jury in the Cardella case. The plaintiff Sobolisky was represented, by different attorneys in the lawsuit brought by him as a plaintiff and the lawsuit brought against him by Cardella. The attorney for Sobolisky in the Cardella case makes a similar claim and will be hereinafter discussed. However, the verdict form submitted to the jury on the lawsuit brought by Cardella was not involved in the lawsuit brought by Sobolisky. The claims relating to the Cardella case are therefore not involved in the lawsuit brought by Sobolisky and there is no claim that any verdict forms bearing Scianna's name were submitted to the jury with respect to the lawsuit brought by Sobolisky.
The third ground asserted by the plaintiff Sobolisky is based CT Page 3283 upon a question asked by counsel for the defendant Beckert as to whether or not the police officer who had investigated the accident had asked hospital authorities to take a blood alcohol test. Objection was made, the jury was excused and the question was not allowed to be answered. Sobolisky claims that because a Motion in Limine was filed directed to certain issues, that the court should have granted a mistrial based upon the fact that a question of that nature was asked. The evidence indicated that two blood alcohol tests were taken of the plaintiff Sobolisky, both showing alcohol content in the blood, but which also showed different readings, (which was the subject of expert testimony by both parties). One of the issues litigated was the time at which the second blood alcohol test was performed and, arguably, a request by the police might have been related to the time the second test was taken. At any rate, the mere asking of the question did not deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial and does not constitute a justifiable ground for a mistrial or for vacating of the verdict.
The plaintiff Sobolisky also asserts that the verdict should be set aside on the grounds that, during the rereading of certain testimony to the jury during deliberations, two jurors had a private conversation during that process. The plaintiff Sobolisky therefore asserts that there were private deliberations to the exclusion of other jurors constituting juror misconduct necessitating a new trial. The plaintiff Sobolisky claims that part of the conversation could be overheard but did not set forth what that conversation was. The conduct described by the plaintiff Sobolisky can hardly be considered deliberations within the meaning of such cases as Speed v. Delibero,
Accordingly, the Motion to Set Aside the Verdict filed by the plaintiff Sobolisky is thereby denied.
The plaintiff Cardella received a verdict against the defendants Beckert, American, Sobolisky and Scianna which included an award for economic damages in the amount of $56,262.00. The defendants Beckert, American and Sobolisky have moved to set that CT Page 3284 verdict aside on the grounds that the award of economic damages is excessive and contrary to the evidence. They also seek a remittitur with respect to that issue.
The parties are in agreement that the plaintiff Cardella incurred medical bills in the amount of $5,033.47. The defendants claim that the loss of wage claim could be no more than $18,340.00 and therefore assert that the economic damage award is excessive. The plaintiff Cardella claims that the loss of wage claim is in the amount of $23,510.00 and that, together with the claim with respect to loss of earning capacity, is sufficient to sustain the amount of the verdict.
The plaintiff Cardella submitted-evidence to establish a permanent injury to the cervical and lumbar spines as well as permanent injury to the left lower extremity. He further produced evidence that he could not return to his former position as a tree trimmer because he was unable to climb as a result of the injuries, thereby suffering a reduction in pay. The plaintiff Cardella also testified to his inability to conduct certain activities and that he is presently impaired by experiencing difficulty with certain activities such as climbing of stairs. Given the plaintiff Cardella's life expectancy, which was in excess of 50 years at the time of trial, the court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the damages are excessive.
Accordingly, the Motion to Set Aside the Verdict and for a Remittitur based upon the award of economic damages is denied.
The defendant Sobolisky also asserts that the placing of his name on the same line with that of Scianna in the verdict form constitutes a ground to set aside the verdict.
The fact that a default was entered against Scianna would entitle Cardella to an award of at least nominal damages as against Scianna. Kolter v. Carabetta Enterprises, Inc.,
The Motion to Set Aside the Verdict on behalf of the defendant Sobolisky is denied.
The parties have requested that a hearing be held with respect to the collateral source payments pursuant to General Statutes
Rush, J.