Opinion
HHDCV146049560S
07-26-2016
Edwin Sanchez v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT (#134)
Wahla, M. Nawaz, Judge
Present before the court is the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict (#134.00) and the defendant's objection to set aside the verdict (#137.00). The plaintiff moves to set aside pursuant to Practice Book § 16-35 and General Statutes § 52-228b, asserting that the jury disregarded the court's instruction when it failed to complete the jury interrogatories which were submitted for its completion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to set aside is denied.
I
PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
The plaintiff, Edwin Sanchez, sued the defendant, Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., on or about February 12, 2014, for an action arising out of a slip and fall inside a trailer of a tractor trailer he was unloading at the Whole Foods store located in Cambridge, Massachusetts on February 12, 2012. The plaintiff's one-count complaint is based on common-law negligence, which in essence is summarized as follows: The plaintiff alleges that he was employed by AAA Industries, a member of Merry Employment Group, operating a tractor trailer owned and controlled by the defendant, Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. On said date, time, and place, the defendant had notice, actual and/or constructive, of dangerous and defective conditions of the floor in said trailer, specifically that a quantity of lard, grease, and/or produce had spilled and been allowed to remain on the floor. The plaintiff was lawfully upon the trailer, when he was caused to slip and fall due to the quantity of lard, grease, and/or produce that had been spilled and allowed to remain on the floor, as a result of which he suffered personal injuries, losses, and damages.
On or about May 23, 2014, the defendant filed an answer in which it denied all the allegations and filed a special defense of contributory negligence. The case was tried before a jury on April 7 and 8, 2016. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
On April 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict. On April 25, 2016, the defendant filed an objection to the motion. On June 20, 2016, the court heard oral arguments from the parties.
II
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for motions to direct a verdict, motions to set aside a verdict, and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same. See Lappostato v. Terk, 143 Conn.App. 384, 409, 71 A.3d 552, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 911, 76 A.3d 627 (2013). The evidence must be considered, along with reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the parties who were successful at trial with weight given to the judgments of the judge and jury. See John T. Brady & Co. v. Stamford, 220 Conn. 432, 440-41, 599 A.2d 370 (1991). " The verdict will be set aside and judgment directed only if we find that the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached their conclusion." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 441. " A trial court may set aside or direct a verdict on a finding that the verdict is manifestly unjust because the jury, on the basis of the evidence presented, mistakenly applied a legal principle or because there is no evidence to which the legal principles of the case can be applied." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Medcalf v. Washington Heights Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 57 Conn.App. 12, 15, 747 A.2d 532 (2000).
III
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's Position
The plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-228b and Practice Book § 16-35, moves the court to set aside the jury's verdict and order a new trial. The plaintiff argues that the court instructed the jury to answer the interrogatories when the foreman returned the verdict, yet the jury failed to do so. Thus, the jury disregarded at least one instruction from the court, and the parties do not know the basis of the jury's decision. The plaintiff further contends that the court erred by entering the judgment on the jury's verdict. Hence, the plaintiff argues the jury's verdict be set aside and the court should order a new trial.
General Statutes § 52-228b provides in pertinent part:
Practice Book § 16-35 provides in relevant part:
Defendant's Position
The defendant asserts that by failing to object to the jury's alleged failure to answer the jury's interrogatories, the plaintiff has waived his rights to have them answered and the general verdict rule is invoked. To support its claim, the defendant cites Freedman v. New York, N.H.& H.R. Co., 81 Conn. 601, 71 A. 901 (1909). In that case, as in the present case, the jury returned the verdict for the defendant without answering any of the jury interrogatories. See id., 607. The Connecticut Supreme Court held there was no error in the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion and arrest of judgment because the plaintiff did not object to the jury failure to answer the interrogatories and remained silent until the jury was discharged. See id. Additionally, the defendant cites Superior Court cases, analogous to the present case. In Williams v. Noy, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-95-0323882-S, (December 4, 1997, Belinkie, J.), the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict in a negligence action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Judge Belinkie wrote " [u]nfortunately, along with the defendant's verdict the jury returned the interrogatories unanswered." He goes on to say that " [i]f the plaintiff wished to protect herself from the implications of a general verdict, counsel should have requested that the interrogatories be answered. In the court's mind, not requesting that interrogatories submitted be answered is tantamount to submitting no interrogatories, which invokes the general verdict rule under Curry v. Burns, [225 Conn. 782, 626 A.2d 719 (1993)]." Williams v. Noy, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV-95-0323882-S.
In the present case, the plaintiff neither objected nor requested that the court order the jury to answer the jury interrogatories. By his silence, the plaintiff had accepted the jury's verdict under the general verdict rule. At the oral argument, the plaintiff conceded that his argument was more technical in nature rather than substantive. He emphasized that he came to know afterward that the jury did not complete the jury interrogatories. The court finds that the plaintiff's claim is neither credible nor persuasive.
The plaintiff ignores the fact that the jury also had substantial evidence, documentary and witness' testimony, that the defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiff, it did not control the subject trailer in which the accident occurred. The defendant presented the evidence to the jury that Lily Transportation (non-party) owned the subject trailer and was responsible for its inspection, maintenance, repair, and cleaning at all times. Also, the jury heard the evidence that Lily Transportation controlled the subject trailer at the time of the plaintiff's accident, not the defendant. The plaintiff testified at trial during cross examination and admitted that he knew of the presence of the lard, grease, and produce on the floor of the trailer and despite that, he proceeded to unload. For all of the foregoing reasons, the jury could have reasonably reached its conclusion to enter a defendant's verdict.
IV
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion to set aside is hereby denied.
" No verdict in any civil action involving a claim for money damages may be set aside except on written motion by a party to the action, stating the reasons relied upon in its support, filed and heard after notice to the adverse party according to the rules of the court. No such verdict may be set aside solely on the ground that the damages are excessive unless the prevailing party has been given an opportunity to have the amount of the judgment decreased by so much thereof as the court deems excessive. No such verdict may be set aside solely on the ground that the damages are inadequate until the parties have first been given an opportunity to accept an addition to the verdict of such amount as the court deems reasonable."
[M]otions to set aside a verdict, motions for remittitur . . . motions for new trials . . . must be filed with the clerk within ten days after the verdict is accepted . . .