Opinion
HHBCV176036622
11-19-2018
Nick PATENAUDE v. Adam FOSTER
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Aurigemma, J.
This is a negligence action in which the plaintiff, Nick Patenaude, alleges that the defendant, Adam Foster, was negligent in causing his vehicle to roll into the vehicle of the plaintiff. The jury returned a Plaintiff’s Verdict awarding zero damages to the plaintiff on October 4, 2018. The defendant timely filed a Motion for Order to Correct Verdict(# 128) and the plaintiff timely filed a Motion to Set Aside Verdict(# 129).
Summary of Evidence
Based on the evidence the jury could have found that on June 30, 2015 the defendant parked his Jeep Cherokee vehicle at a Cumberland Farms and left the vehicle running while he went in to get coffee. At the same time the plaintiff was putting air in the tire of his truck when the defendant’s vehicle rolled into the plaintiff’s truck. The truck moved, causing the plaintiff’s left hand to be pushed back onto the pavement.
The plaintiff did not report any injuries to the policeman who came to investigate the accident. The plaintiff went to the emergency room and had his left wrist x-rayed. The x-ray was normal. The plaintiff visited Dr. Donahue, an orthopedic surgeon, nine days after the accident. The doctor testified that he found "very mild tenderness" over the snuffbox area of the left hand and that the plaintiff had a full range of motion in his wrist and his sensation was normal. The MRI of the plaintiff’s left wrist was essentially negative except for a small cyst, which according to Dr. Donahue, was inconsequential.
Dr. Donahue sent the plaintiff for physical therapy. The pain in the snuffbox area of the wrist improved. However, in January 2016, some six months after the accident, the plaintiff started having tingling in the fingers of his left hand. Dr. Donahue testified that this was caused by cupital tunnel syndrome which "most commonly occurs from repetitive trauma, usually in the workplace when someone does, usually a heavy job, over and over again. It requires a lot of stress to their upper extremities." The plaintiff had worked as a roofer for many years prior to the accident and continued to work as a roofer after the accident. Dr. Donahue testified that he did not know what the plaintiff did for a living. In February of 2016 the plaintiff underwent an operation by Dr. Donahue to correct the cupital tunnel syndrome.
During the deliberations, the jury foreman prepared a note which asked whether the jury could find that the defendant was negligent, but award the plaintiff zero damages. The court instructed the jury that if they found that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the defendant’s negligence, then they could award zero damages. The jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict for zero damages.
Discussion of the Law and Ruling
In Right v. Breen, 277 Conn. 364, 890 A.2d 1287 (2006), the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed the trial court’s additur of $1.00 where liability was admitted, but no damages were awarded by the jury. The court in Right stated:
We conclude that a plaintiff bringing an action in negligence is not entitled to nominal damages, as a matter of law, when the defendant has admitted liability but has denied having caused actual injury, and the jury awards no damages to the plaintiff. Accordingly, we expressly overrule that portion of Keller [v. Carone, 138 Conn. 405, 406-07, 85 A.2d 489 (1951) ] that held otherwise, and we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.Right v. Breen, supra, at 365.
It is clear that what the defendant in Right had intended to do was admit fault, not liability, as "liability" has two components, fault and causation. The court in Right viewed prior cases which so held:
Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 269 Conn. 672, 687 n.13, 849 A.2d 813 (2004) ("essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established: duty; breach of that duty; causation; and actual injury" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Mahoney v. Beatman, 110 Conn. 184, 196, 147 A. 762 (1929) (there must be "a causal relation between the act of negligence and the injury in whole or in part").Right v. Breen, supra, at 371-72.
The defendant in the present case admitted negligence. However, the issue of causation was hotly contested. The jury could have found that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were not caused by the accident, but rather, were caused by the repeated trauma of lifting heavy objects in the course of the plaintiff’s job as a roofer.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Correct is granted. The jury found no causation between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, the jury could not have found in favor of the plaintiff and should have entered a defendant’s verdict. The court hereby corrects the verdict to reflect that it is a defendant’s verdict. There was evidence to support the jury’s finding of no damages. Therefore the Motion to Set Aside Verdict is denied. Right v. Breen, supra; Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174, 745 A.2d 789 (2000).