Opinion
(2706)
Because the defendant, in its appeal from the judgment rendered on a jury verdict for the plaintiffs in their negligence action, failed first to file a motion to set aside the verdict, this court was limited to a determination of whether there was plain error. None was apparent from the record.
Argued February 28, 1985
Decision released May 14, 1985
Action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the defendant's negligence, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford and tried to the jury before Curran, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appealed to this court. No error.
Alan G. Schwartz, with whom, on the brief, were Jeremy G. Zimmerman and Jeanette C. Schreiber, for the appellant (defendant).
Bruce D. Jacobs, with whom, on the brief, was Stanley A. Jacobs, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
This is an action for damages resulting from injuries sustained by the plaintiff Tecla Polce while on the premises of the defendant, Stop Shop Companies, Inc.; the plaintiff Valentino Polce sought damages for loss of consortium. The matter was tried to a jury and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed claiming the court erred in its charge to the jury.
The defendant claims that the court erred by failing to instruct the jury (1) that the defendant's responsibility to compensate the plaintiffs is limited if the plaintiff's disability arose from a subsequent accident, and (2) that the defendant had no responsibility for those injuries attributable to a preexisting condition.
The record indicates that the defendant failed to file a motion to set aside the verdict as required by Practice Book 320 or 3000. Such failure limits our review to the standard of plain error. Practice Book 3063; Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 Conn. 510, 513-16, 441 A.2d 163 (1981); Denby v. Voloshin Cadillac, Inc., 3 Conn. App. 181, 183, 485 A.2d 1360 (1985); Eagar v. Barron, 2 Conn. App. 468, 472, 480 A.2d 576 (1984); Rozbicki v. Pelletier, 2 Conn. App. 87, 88, 476 A.2d 1069 (1984). Examination of the record gives no indication of plain error; the charge as given, relating to disabilities claimed to arise from a subsequent accident and relating to injuries claimed to be attributable to a preexisting condition, was correct in law, adapted to the evidence and issues and sufficient to guide the jury.