Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-216b (2026)

Articulation to trier of fact of amount of damages claimed to be recoverable permitted

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In any civil action to recover damages resulting from personal injury or wrongful death, counsel for any party to the action shall be entitled to specifically articulate to the trier of fact during closing arguments, in lump sums or by mathematical formulae, the amount of past and future economic and noneconomic damages claimed to be recoverable.

(b) Whenever, in a jury trial, specific monetary sums or mathematical formulae are articulated during closing arguments as provided for in subsection (a) of this section, the trial court shall instruct the jury that the sums or mathematical formulae articulated are not evidence but only arguments and that the determination of the amount of damages to be awarded, if any, is solely the jury's function.

(P.A. 89-319.)

Cited. 216 C. 604; 217 C. 671; 221 C. 331.

Cited. 31 CA 518; 38 CA 447. Standard for admission of future economic damages is that it must be reasonably probable that plaintiff will require certain treatment in the future as a result of defendant's conduct, and in this case admitted statement was impermissible when based on possibility that plaintiff may require surgery in the future. 85 CA 383.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Bartholomew v. Schweizer, 587 A.2d 1014 (Conn. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bartholomew v. Schweizer, 587 A.2d 1014 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 31× “The principal issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of General Statutes § 52-216b, 1 which permits closing argument to the trier of fact to include counsel’s suggestion of an appropriate monetary recovery.”

Bleau v. Ward, 603 A.2d 1147 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 19× “” The plaintiff claims that the trial court has effectively invalidated General Statutes § 52-216b. General Statutes § 52-216b provides: “(a) In any civil action to recover damages resulting from personal injury or wrongful death, counsel for any party to the action shall be…”

State v. McCahill, 811 A.2d 667 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 6× “672 , we concluded that General Statutes § 52-216b, 22 “which *520 permits closing argument to the trier of fact to include counsel’s suggestion of an appropriate monetary recovery,” did not violate the separation of powers provision.”

Madsen v. Gates, 857 A.2d 412 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “Further, General Statutes § 52-216b (a) provides, in relevant part: “In any civil action to recover damages resulting from personal injury .”

Santa Maria v. Klevecz, 800 A.2d 1186 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 52-216b (b); Daigle v.”

Lafferty v. Jones, 229 Conn. App. 487 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 52-216b (a) (‘‘[i]n any civil action to recover damages resulting from personal injury or wrongful death, counsel for any party to the action shall be entitled to specifically articulate to the trier of fact during closing arguments, in lump sums or by…”

Bilodeau v. City of Bristol, 661 A.2d 1049 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) directed the jury to return a defendant’s verdict, (2) refused to permit the introduction into evidence of § 16-1 (b) of the code of the city of Bristol and (3) effectively barred the plaintiff from arguing…”

Daigle v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins., 760 A.2d 117 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 5× “General Statutes § 52-216b provides in relevant part: “(a) In any civil action to recover damages resulting from personal injury .”

Collins v. Wetherbee, 625 A.2d 838 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 4× “7 In subsection (b), the statute states that in cases tried to a jury the court must instruct the jury that these sums are not evidence and that it is the jury’s function to compute the proper amount of damages a case warrants.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.