No verdict in any civil action involving a claim for money damages may be set aside except on written motion by a party to the action, stating the reasons relied upon in its support, filed and heard after notice to the adverse party according to the rules of the court. No such verdict may be set aside solely on the ground that the damages are excessive unless the prevailing party has been given an opportunity to have the amount of the judgment decreased by so much thereof as the court deems excessive. No such verdict may be set aside solely on the ground that the damages are inadequate until the parties have first been given an opportunity to accept an addition to the verdict of such amount as the court deems reasonable.
(February, 1965, P.A. 532; P.A. 82-160, S. 115.)
History: P.A. 82-160 replaced “remit” with “have the amount of the judgment decreased by” and rephrased the section.
Action of trial court setting aside a verdict will not be disturbed unless discretion has been abused, but where there was no evidence on which verdict for defendant could be set aside, case was remanded and court directed to render judgment on verdict of jury for defendant. 155 C. 704. Cited. 156 C. 323; 160 C. 219. Purpose of statute to provide opportunity for trial court to pass on claims of error discussed. 185 C. 510; overruled, see 239 C. 207. Cited. 189 C. 484; 194 C. 35; 198 C. 322; 202 C. 234; 203 C. 607; 204 C. 303; 205 C. 751; 208 C. 82; 209 C. 450; Id., 510; 210 C. 503; 221 C. 14; Id., 356; Id., 549. Judgment of Appellate Court in 32 CA 574 reversed. 230 C. 95. Cited. 234 C. 660; 235 C. 107. Court held that scope of appellate review is not limited to that provided by plain error doctrine where plaintiff fails to file motion to set aside verdict, overruling 185 C. 510 and its progeny. 239 C. 207. Sec. 52-228a and this section are not inconsistent with one another; because section permits “the parties” to reject an order of additur, it cannot be read to prohibit plaintiff from rejecting an order of additur; there is no irreconcilable conflict between this section and Sec. 52-216a mandating that one be accepted and the other abandoned. 246 C. 170.
Cited. 2 CA 174; 14 CA 289; judgment reversed, see 209 C. 450; 15 CA 6; 16 CA 379; 24 CA 739; 26 CA 231; 27 CA 135. Court should have given parties opportunity to accept a reasonable addition before ordering a new trial on all issues. Id., 471. Cited. 29 CA 151; 30 CA 125; 33 CA 575; 35 CA 239; Id., 301; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 107; Id., 850; 43 CA 453; Id., 475. Order of remittitur does not necessarily mean that verdict is tainted. 65 CA 441. Trial court was within its discretion to find that a jury's verdict, which compensated plaintiff for past medical bills and the cost of a future surgery that would produce pain, suffering and disability, but that failed to provide plaintiff with noneconomic damages, was improper as a matter of law. 112 CA 467. Section applies only to verdict for plaintiff that may be deemed inadequate, and a court may not order an additur to a defendant's verdict. 117 CA 658.
Cited. 37 CS 1.
Notes of Decisions
Stern v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 717 A.2d 195 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 38× “General Statutes § 52-228b provides: “Setting aside of verdict in action claiming money damages.”
Santopietro v. City of New Haven, 682 A.2d 106 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 12× “The plaintiff had not, however, filed a motion to set aside the verdict in accordance with Practice Book § 320 5 and General Statutes § 52-228b. 6 Id., 512. We held that “[o]ur conclusion that a motion to set aside a verdict is essential for a full review of claims of error in…”
State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “2d 106 (1996) (concluding that our previous statutory interpretation of General Statutes § 52-228b was flawed); Conway v.”
Saporoso v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 603 A.2d 1160 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 11× “I After the jury, as directed by the court, had returned a verdict for the defendants, the plaintiff filed this appeal without having first moved to set aside the directed verdict. “No verdict in any civil action involving a claim for money damages may be set aside except on…”
Kolich v. Shugrue, 502 A.2d 918 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 10× “On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on proximate cause.”
Falby v. Zarembski, 602 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 7× “General Statutes § 52-228b provides in pertinent part: “No verdict in any civil action involving a claim for money damages may be set aside except on written motion by a party to the action, stating the reasons relied upon in its support, filed and heard after notice to the…”
Jeffries v. Johnson, 607 A.2d 443 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 10× “The defendant claims that the trial court improperly set the verdict aside, or in the alternative, that it should have ordered an additur pursuant to General Statutes § 52-228b rather than ordering a new trial.”
Kelley v. Bonney, 606 A.2d 693 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 52-228b states *560 that motions to set aside a verdict must be made in writing.”
Childs v. Bainer, 663 A.2d 398 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 5× “1 Because the jury had failed to *109 award noneconomic damages, the plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-228b, 2 filed a motion with the trial court for an additur and, alternatively, to set aside the verdict as to damages only.”
Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 441 A.2d 163 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 6× “The plaintiff sustained neurologic damage, paraparesis, bilateral footdrop and low back pain following the laminectomy.”
Prishwalko v. Bob Thomas Ford, Inc., 636 A.2d 1383 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 6× “By direction of the court, the jury found the issues for the defendant, and judgment was rendered for the defendant.”
Collins v. Colonial Penn Ins., 778 A.2d 899 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The defendant then filed a motion for remittitur pursuant to General Statutes § 52-216a, 7 a motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-228b, 8 52-572h (f) and (n) 9 and the common law, and a motion for collateral source reduction pursuant to General…”
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.