TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Minnelli v. Poulos

Matteo Minnelli v. George H. Poulos Et Al.

Minnelli v. Poulos, 348 A.2d 673 (Conn. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 12, 1974
Judges
House, Shapiro, Loiselle, MacDonald, Bogdanski
Citations
348 A.2d 673166 Conn. 1731974 Conn. LEXIS 878

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages he claimed to have sustained when he was struck by an automobile owned by the defendant George H. Poulos and operated by the defendant Andrew H. Poulos. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $180,000. The defendants moved to set aside the verdict on the ground that it was excessive. The court denied this motion. In its memorandum of decision denying the motion, the court noted that the jury could reasonably find that the plaintiff had sustained special damages exceeding $40,000, that he had a life expectancy of 23.3 years and had sustained a 75 percent permanent disability of his lower extremities. The court con- *174 eluded: “In light of the above, the court was not shocked by the verdict and in its judgment felt the same was within normal limits.” The defendants appealed from the judgment, assigning as error the ruling of the court denying their motion to set aside the verdict because the damages awarded were excessive. This was the sole claim pressed on this appeal.

The ruling of a trial court on a motion to set aside a verdict is entitled to great weight.

Darling v. Burrone Bros., Inc., 162 Conn. 187, 200 , 292 A.2d 912 . We have reviewed the evidence on the issue of damages as summarized in the appendices to the briefs and conclude that the jury could reasonably have found that the damages awarded by them constituted fair, just and reasonable compensation for the injuries which the plaintiff sustained. It cannot be held as a matter of law that the award does not fall within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages.

Neal v. Shiels, Inc., 166 Conn. 3, 20 , 347 A.2d 102 ;

Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 239 , 332 A.2d 93 . We find no error in the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict.

There is no error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1974: 11976: 11995: 119742026peak 1974 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nash v. Hunt352 A.2d 773 (Conn. 1974)
  2. Doran v. Wolk365 A.2d 1190 (Conn. 1976)
  3. Ortiz v. City of Bridgeport, No. Cv93 30 46 43 S (Mar. 17, 1995)1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2371 (1995)

Most recent

  1. Ortiz v. City of Bridgeport, No. Cv93 30 46 43 S (Mar. 17, 1995)1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2371 (1995)
  2. Doran v. Wolk365 A.2d 1190 (Conn. 1976)
  3. Nash v. Hunt352 A.2d 773 (Conn. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Neal v. Shiels, Inc., 347 A.2d 102 (Conn. 1974) 77
Raia v. Topehius, 332 A.2d 93 (Conn. 1973) 57
Darling v. Burrone Bros., 292 A.2d 912 (Conn. 1972) 57

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list