Court Finds $109,528 Award to Plaintiff Fair and Just, Denies Additur

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Plaintiff's motion to set aside a favorable verdict and for additur was denied because the amount of the award was not manifestly unjust and was within the jury's province as trier of fact and plaintiff did not object to the jury charges on damages. Plaintiff moved to set aside a verdict in her favor in her claim against defendants for personal injuries resulting from a car accident. Plaintiff had been awarded economic and noneconomic damages, but plaintiff moved for an order of additur.

This case involves a claim for personal injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. On July 16, 1997, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Maria Mazzola, in the total amount of $ 109,528, and against the defendant, Dorothy Tiani. In their answers to interrogatories, the jury awarded economic damages of $ 87,628 and noneconomic damages of $ 21,900. The verdict was accepted and ordered recorded.

During its deliberations, the jury asked if it could have a summary of the damages claimed by plaintiff and compensation figures offered by plaintiff's counsel in closing argument. Defendants objected and argued that they should be allowed to reiterate closing argument if plaintiff was allowed to reiterate closing argument. The court did not allow plaintiff's counsel to reiterate the way he had arrived at the damage figure, and the jury continued its deliberations. Plaintiff claimed that the jury did not award her future noneconomic damages for pain and suffering and for a diminution in her future activities and enjoyment because the court had refused to provide a damage breakdown. One defendant argued that the jury might have refused to award future noneconomic damages because plaintiff testified she could exercise daily. The court noted that the amount of a damage award was within the jury's province as the trier of fact. Damage assessments defied precise mathematical computations. Plaintiff did not object to the jury charges on damages. There was no proof that the verdict was manifestly unjust or that the jury mistakenly applied a legal principle.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.

Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Mazzola v. Tiani, 1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2275 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug 21, 1997)