Opinion
CV136034419
04-21-2017
Chiagoziem Nnodum v. Mark Royce et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT
William B. Rush, Judge Trial Referee.
The plaintiff instituted the present action to recover monetary damages for injuries sustained as a result of a rear end motor vehicle accident occurring in the early morning hours on Route 15 in Fairfield Connecticut. The plaintiff testified he experienced transmission problems with his car and pulled to the side of the highway and was about to turn on his flashing lights when his vehicle was struck in the rear end by a vehicle operated by the individual defendant. The accident took place in the travel portion of the highway and there was disputed evidence as to how far to the right he pulled the vehicle and as to the availability of the exit ramp approximately 100 feet further down the roadway. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for economic damages in the amount of $46,291.76 and non-economic damage in the amount of $480,000. The jury also found the plaintiff to be 16% comparatively negligent and awarded the plaintiff $442,085.08 in monetary damages. The defendants have now filed a Motion to Set Aside the Verdict.
The defendant claims that the Court failed to charge the jury that the defendant was entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the law and use reasonable care until he knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that the assumption is unwarranted. Sic v. Nunan, 307 Conn. 399, 408, 54 A.3d 553(2012); Zegarski v. Horton, 150 Conn. 212, 219, 187 A.2d 750 (1963); Riley v. Connecticut Co., 129 Conn. 554, 557, 29 A.2d 759 (1943); McDowell v. Federal Tea Co., 128 Conn. 437, 442, 23 A.2d 512 (1941) (" the (defendant) was entitled to have the rule called to the attention of the jury. We are constrained to hold that the omission to do so was reversible error"); Gross v. Boston, Worcester & New York Street Railway, 117 Conn. 589, 598, 169 A. 613 (1933) (" it was incumbent on the trial court, even without request, to give an instruction upon (the rule)" (emphases supplied).
Given the facts of the accident (dark, on a high speed divided highway, with issues as to illumination, proximity to an overhead roadway abutment, visibility and location of vehicles) the defendant would have been entitled to a charge as to the assumptions to which the defendant was entitled to make as to the issue of negligence not comparative negligence. There are no requests to charge set forth on the computerized file and the Court has no recollection of any discussion of the issue involved. Any opinions as to the effect, if any, upon the jury of the absence of any reference to the rule would be speculation and the Court concludes that the issues were not fairly submitted to the jury.
For the reasons set forth, the Motion to Set Aside the Verdict is hereby granted and the remaining grounds advanced by the defendants are hereby denied.