practical test in Connecticut

2004The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Childs v. Bainer, 235 Conn. 107, 113-14 , 663 A.2d 398 (1995). “[A] court’s decision to set aside a verdict and to order an additur ... is entitled to great weight and every reasonable presumption sho

2004The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Childs v. Bainer, 235 Conn. 107, 113-14 , 663 A.2d 398 (1995). “[A] court’s decision to set aside a verdict and to order an additur ... is entitled to great weight and every reasonable presumption sho

2001In determining whether a verdict does such an injustice, "the only practical test is whether the total damages awarded fall somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption: Briggs v. Becker , 101 Conn. 62 , 66-67 124 A. 826 (1924).

2001In determining whether a verdict does such an injustice, "the only practical test is whether the total damages awarded fall somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption: Briggs v. Becker , 101 Conn. 62 , 66-67 124 A. 826 (1924).

2002The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption." (Citations omitted.) Wochek v. Foley , 193 Conn. 582 , 586 , 477 A.2d 1015 (1984).

2002The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption." (Citations omitted.) Wochek v. Foley , 193 Conn. 582 , 586 , 477 A.2d 1015 (1984).

2002"The only practical test to apply to this verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality , prejudice , mistake or corruption ." McKirdy v. Cascio , 142 Conn. 80 , 86 , 111 A.2d 555 (1955); Herb v. Kerr , supra; Kiniry v. Danbury Hospital , 183 Conn. 448 , 461 , 439 A.2d 408 (1981): Katsetos v. Nolan , 170 Conn. 637 , 656 , 368 A.2d 172 (1976).

2002"The only practical test to apply to this verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality , prejudice , mistake or corruption ." McKirdy v. Cascio , 142 Conn. 80 , 86 , 111 A.2d 555 (1955); Herb v. Kerr , supra; Kiniry v. Danbury Hospital , 183 Conn. 448 , 461 , 439 A.2d 408 (1981): Katsetos v. Nolan , 170 Conn. 637 , 656 , 368 A.2d 172 (1976).

1995“The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wood v. Bridgeport, 216 Conn. 604, 611 , 583 A.2d 124 (1990).

1995“The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wood v. Bridgeport, 216 Conn. 604, 611 , 583 A.2d 124 (1990).

1995Wochek v. Foley, 193 Conn. 582 , 587 , 477 A.2d 1015 (1984). "`The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.'" Wood v. Bridgeport, 216 Conn. 604 , 611 , 583 A.2d 124 (1990), quoting Slabinski v. Dix, 138 Conn. 625 , 629 , 88 A.2d 115 (1952).

1995Wochek v. Foley, 193 Conn. 582 , 587 , 477 A.2d 1015 (1984). "`The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.'" Wood v. Bridgeport, 216 Conn. 604 , 611 , 583 A.2d 124 (1990), quoting Slabinski v. Dix, 138 Conn. 625 , 629 , 88 A.2d 115 (1952).

2009Every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the court’s refusal to set aside the verdict as excessive should be *506 indulged . . . and its ruling will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

1995Every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the court's refusal to set aside the verdict as excessive should be indulged and its ruling will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Goral v. Kenney, 26 Conn. App. 231 , 240-41 , 600 A.2d 1031 (1991), quoting Oakes v. New England Dairies, 219 Conn. 1 , 13-14 , 519 A.2d 1261 (1991).

2004The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 536 , 729 A.2d 740 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929 , 120 S. Ct. 326 , 145 L.

2004The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 536 , 729 A.2d 740 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929 , 120 S. Ct. 326 , 145 L.

1998The only practical test to apply is whether the award falls somewhere within the unnecessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption." Eisenbach v. Downey , 45 Conn. App. 165 , 184 , 694 A.2d 1376 (1997).

1998The only practical test to apply is whether the award falls somewhere within the unnecessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption." Eisenbach v. Downey , 45 Conn. App. 165 , 184 , 694 A.2d 1376 (1997).

2002The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessary uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Childs v. Gaynor , 235 Conn. 107 , 112-114 , 663 A.2d 398 (1995). "[I]t is the court's duty to set aside the verdict when it finds that it does manifest injustice, and is . . . palpably against the evid

2002The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessary uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury were influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Childs v. Gaynor , 235 Conn. 107 , 112-114 , 663 A.2d 398 (1995). "[I]t is the court's duty to set aside the verdict when it finds that it does manifest injustice, and is . . . palpably against the evid

2002"The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel CT Page 14191 the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Parasco v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. , 48 Conn. App. 671 , 675-676 , 712 A.2d 433 (1998).

2002"The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel CT Page 14191 the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Parasco v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. , 48 Conn. App. 671 , 675-676 , 712 A.2d 433 (1998).

2002"The only practical test to apply to this verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality , prejudice , mistake or corruption ." McKirdy v. Cascio , 142 Conn. 80 , 86 , 111 A.2d 555 (1955); Herb v. Kerr , supra; Kiniry v. Danbury Hospital , 183 Conn. 448 , 461 , 439 A.2d 408 (1981): Katsetos v. Nolan , 170 Conn. 637 , 656 , 368 A.2d 172 (1976).

2002"The only practical test to apply to this verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality , prejudice , mistake or corruption ." McKirdy v. Cascio , 142 Conn. 80 , 86 , 111 A.2d 555 (1955); Herb v. Kerr , supra; Kiniry v. Danbury Hospital , 183 Conn. 448 , 461 , 439 A.2d 408 (1981): Katsetos v. Nolan , 170 Conn. 637 , 656 , 368 A.2d 172 (1976).

2002"The only practical test to apply to this verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality , prejudice , mistake or corruption ." McKirdy v. Cascio , 142 Conn. 80 , 86 , 111 A.2d 555 (1955); Herb v. Kerr , supra; Kiniry v. Danbury Hospital , 183 Conn. 448 , 461 , 439 A.2d 408 (1981): Katsetos v. Nolan , 170 Conn. 637 , 656 , 368 A.2d 172 (1976).

2002"The only practical test to apply to this verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality , prejudice , mistake or corruption ." McKirdy v. Cascio , 142 Conn. 80 , 86 , 111 A.2d 555 (1955); Herb v. Kerr , supra; Kiniry v. Danbury Hospital , 183 Conn. 448 , 461 , 439 A.2d 408 (1981): Katsetos v. Nolan , 170 Conn. 637 , 656 , 368 A.2d 172 (1976).

2023The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the [trier of fact] was influenced by partiality, preju- dice, mistake or corruption.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 783 ; see also, e.g., Munn v. Hotchkiss School, 326 Conn. 540, 577 , 165 A.3d 1167 (2017) (‘‘[Emotional distress damages and related] dam- ages lie in an extremely uncertain area . . . in which it is quite impossibl

2023The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the [trier of fact] was influenced by partiality, preju- dice, mistake or corruption.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 783 ; see also, e.g., Munn v. Hotchkiss School, 326 Conn. 540, 577 , 165 A.3d 1167 (2017) (‘‘[Emotional distress damages and related] dam- ages lie in an extremely uncertain area . . . in which it is quite impossibl

2022The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the neces- sarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensa- tion in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DeEsso v. Litzie, 172 Conn. App. 787 , 795–96, 163 A.3d 55 , cert. denied, 326 Conn. 913 , 173 A.3d 389 (2017).

2022The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the neces- sarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensa- tion in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DeEsso v. Litzie, 172 Conn. App. 787 , 795–96, 163 A.3d 55 , cert. denied, 326 Conn. 913 , 173 A.3d 389 (2017).

2022The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the neces- sarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensa- tion in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DeEsso v. Litzie, 172 Conn. App. 787 , 795–96, 163 A.3d 55 , cert. denied, 326 Conn. 913 , 173 A.3d 389 (2017).

2022The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the neces- sarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensa- tion in the particular case, or whether the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DeEsso v. Litzie, 172 Conn. App. 787 , 795–96, 163 A.3d 55 , cert. denied, 326 Conn. 913 , 173 A.3d 389 (2017).

2010The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether a verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Snell v. Beamon, 82 Conn. App. 141, 145 , 842 A.2d 1167 (2004).

2010The only practical test to apply to a verdict is whether the award of damages falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation in the particular case, or whether a verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury [was] influenced by partiality, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Snell v. Beamon, 82 Conn. App. 141, 145 , 842 A.2d 1167 (2004).

2004The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 536 , 729 A.2d 740 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929 , 120 S. Ct. 326 , 145 L.

2001The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 536 , 729 A.2d 740 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929 , 120 S. Ct. 326 , 145 L.

2004The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 536 , 729 A.2d 740 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929 , 120 S. Ct. 326 , 145 L.

2001The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 536 , 729 A.2d 740 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929 , 120 S. Ct. 326 , 145 L.

2004The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 536 , 729 A.2d 740 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929 , 120 S. Ct. 326 , 145 L.

2001The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Greene, 248 Conn. 508, 536 , 729 A.2d 740 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 929 , 120 S. Ct. 326 , 145 L.

1997Every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the court’s refusal to set aside the verdict as excessive should be indulged and its ruling will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. ...” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Goral v. Kenney, 26 Conn. App. 231, 240-41 , 600 A.2d 1031 (1991).

1997Every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the court’s refusal to set aside the verdict as excessive should be indulged and its ruling will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. ...” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Goral v. Kenney, 26 Conn. App. 231, 240-41 , 600 A.2d 1031 (1991).

1990“Evidence offered at trial relevant to damages must be reviewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” Holbrook v. Casazza, 204 Conn. 336, 360 , 528 A.2d 774 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1006 , 108 S. Ct. 699 , 98 L.

1990“Evidence offered at trial relevant to damages must be reviewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” Holbrook v. Casazza, 204 Conn. 336, 360 , 528 A.2d 774 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1006 , 108 S. Ct. 699 , 98 L.

1961Silks v. Monzani, 128 Conn. 470, 474 , 24 A.2d 247 ; Squires v. Reynolds, 125 Conn. 366, 369 , 5 A.2d 877 ; Briggs v. Becker, 101 Conn. 62, 66 , 124 A. 826 .

1961Silks v. Monzani, 128 Conn. 470, 474 , 24 A.2d 247 ; Squires v. Reynolds, 125 Conn. 366, 369 , 5 A.2d 877 ; Briggs v. Becker, 101 Conn. 62, 66 , 124 A. 826 .

1960McKirdy v. Cascio, 142 Conn. 80, 86 , 111 A.2d 555 , and cases cited; Mulcahy v. Larson, 130 Conn. 112, 114 , 32 A.2d 161 ; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., § 197.

1960McKirdy v. Cascio, 142 Conn. 80, 86 , 111 A.2d 555 , and cases cited; Mulcahy v. Larson, 130 Conn. 112, 114 , 32 A.2d 161 ; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., § 197.

2023The only practical test to apply to [a] verdict is whether the award falls somewhere within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages or whether the size of the verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to compel the conclusion that the [trier of fact] was influenced by partiality, preju- dice, mistake or corruption.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 783 ; see also, e.g., Munn v. Hotchkiss School, 326 Conn. 540, 577 , 165 A.3d 1167 (2017) (‘‘[Emotional distress damages and related] dam- ages lie in an extremely uncertain area . . . in which it is quite impossibl