Opinion
No. CV00-0440334S
May 21, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT
The instant lawsuit had its origin in an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of Temple and Elm Streets in the City of New Haven. The plaintiff operator was proceeding in an easterly direction on Elm Street. The defendant operator was traveling south on Temple Street. Traffic control consisted of an overhead traffic light.
Each operator insisted she (he) entered the intersection on a "green" light thus claiming the statutory right of way (Section 14-299 C.G.S.).
At the time of oral argument on this motion both counsel argued that liability wise the critical issue was the color of the light. However, the involved operators each claimed the other was negligent in failing to maintain a proper lookout, in failing to have her (his) vehicle under proper control, and traveling at an unreasonable rate of speed. There were no exceptions to charge.
The issue relative to color of the traffic light and manner in which involved drivers were operating their motor vehicles, presented question of fact for resolution by the jury. There was evidence to support the conclusion of the jury that the defendant was not negligent (or that the plaintiff was negligent to the extent of 51 percent or more).
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. The instructions on the verdict form indicated it was to be used in the event the jury concluded that the defendant was not legally liable to the plaintiff or the plaintiff herself was 51 percent or more at fault. The court's instructions to the jury concerning circumstances under which this form was to be used were not excepted to. No interrogatories were requested thus the application of the general verdict rule which presumes that all disputed issues are found in favor of the prevailing party compels the conclusion that the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant was negligent. Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn. App. 537.
The claim that the court erred when it refused to allow plaintiff to introduce evidence that the defendant made a claim for personal injuries in the instant accident as well on the occasion of prior accidents is without merit. Whether the defendant made a claim on the occasion of instant accident or other accidents was not relevant and if admitted would have opened the door to a host of other collateral issues.
The court has broad discretion in ruling upon admissibility of evidence and its rulings will not be disturbed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion and a showing of substantial prejudice and injustice. Barry v. Quality Steel Products Inc., 263 Conn. 424, 447; Moran v. Eastern Equipment Co. Sales, Inc., 76 Conn. App. 137, 151.
As to the issue relative to alleged inappropriate comments by defense counsel in his closing argument the question is whether his remarks went beyond "a generous latitude in argument generated by the zeal of counsel." The burden of proving that such remarks deprived the complaining party of a fair trial lie with that party.
No curative request to charge was filed and as indicated above no exceptions to the charge were made. The court did admonish counsel in the presence of the jury of the impropriety of his comments.
The remarks of defense counsel although inappropriate did not rise to the level of depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial. Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn. App. 537, 542 et seq.
Motion Denied.
By the court
Flanagan, J.