Opinion
(AC 20872)
Argued May 30, 2001
Officially released July 24, 2001
Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of the defendant's alleged negligence, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield and tried to the jury before Hon. Edward F. Stodolink, judge trial referee; verdict for the named plaintiff; thereafter, the court denied the defendant's motions to set aside the verdict and for a remittitur, and rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Alan S. Tobin, for the appellant (defendant).
Frank A. Bailey, with whom, on the brief, were Robert R. Sheldon and Douglas Mahoney, for the appellee (named plaintiff).
Opinion
In this personal injury action, the defendant, Ruby W. Thompson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff Kari Damato. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) admitted into evidence certain expert testimony from a physician, (2) denied her motion to set aside the verdict and (3) denied her motion for a remittitur. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The standard of review for each claim raised by the defendant is the abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Copas, 252 Conn. 318, 326, 746 A.2d 761 (2000) (court's evidentiary ruling upheld absent clear abuse of discretion); Gilliard v. Van-Court Property Management Services, Ltd., 63 Conn. App. 637, 644, 777 A.2d 745 (2001) (court's denial of motion for remittitur undisturbed unless clear abuse of discretion); Davis v. Fracasso, 59 Conn. App. 291, 295, 756 A.2d 325 (2000) (court's denial of motion to set aside verdict upheld absent manifest abuse of discretion). Further, when ruling on a motion for remittitur, a trial court must determine whether the jury's award "falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gilliard v. Van-Court Property Management Services, Ltd., supra, 643. In a case involving similar injuries from a motor vehicle accident, our Supreme Court concluded that a jury's award of $150,000 fell "`somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages.'" Bartholomew v. Schweizer, 217 Conn. 671, 688-89, 587 A.2d 1014 (1991).
We have fully reviewed the records and briefs and considered the oral arguments of the parties. Having applied the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conforms to the applicable law.