TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Royston v. Factor

Ann Marie Royston v. Quinette E. Factor

Royston v. Factor, 474 A.2d 108 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Connecticut Appellate Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 4, 1984
Docket
No. (2369)
Judges
Dannehy, Hull, Dupont
Citations
474 A.2d 1081 Conn. App. 5761984 Conn. App. LEXIS 574
Cited by 14 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals 1

from a judgment rendered after a hearing in damages awarding $21,000 to the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries. The issues on appeal are (1) whether the court erred in considering the continued disability and life expectancy of the plaintiff as factors in its award without explicit medical testimony as to permanency, and (2) whether the damages awarded were excessive.

The plaintiffs car was hit in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle. The impact pushed the motor of the plaintiffs car which was located at its rear into the front seat. The driver’s seat was broken and the doors were jammed. The plaintiff’s injuries included a ligamentous and muscular sprain of the cervical spine, and multiple contusions. Her medical expenses were $1436.30, *577 her lost earnings $120, and necessary household help amounted to $500. The court found that she had a continuing need of medication and physical therapy.

The medical testimony was that the plaintiff had a markedly decreased range of motion of the cervical spine in all directions and that she had “a residual initial back injury,” but that, as of the date of the trial two years after the accident, it was too soon to determine if there would be “permanent damage.” The trial court, after noting that problems existed in estimating permanent disability, made its award based on the cost of the plaintiff’s medical care and other expenses, pain and suffering, continued disability, and the plaintiff’s life expectancy.

Compensation to the plaintiff properly included items which, with a reasonable degree of certainty, would exist in the future.

Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 544 , 116 A.2d 167 (1955);

Boland v. Vanderbilt, 140 Conn. 520, 523 , 102 A.2d 362 (1953). The court had the opportunity to assess the testimony of the plaintiff and her doctor. It could properly conclude that if the disability still existed two years after the accident, it would in all probability continue. A trier of facts can conclude, by inference, that an injury will be permanent even though there is no medical testimony expressly substantiating permanency. See note, 18 A.L.R.3d 170 , 183-84.

Damages in personal injury cases cannot be computed mathematically, nor does the law furnish any precise, definite rule for their assessment. The trier of fact must evaluate the elements of an award and place a monetary value on the whole. The court’s award is not excessive or exhorbitant and in no way shocks a sense of justice.

Kiniry v. Danbury Hospital, 183 Conn. 448, 461 , 439 A.2d 408 (1981).

There is no error.

1

This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 2 (c).

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (“Damages in personal injury cases cannot be computed mathematically, nor does the law furnish any precise, definite rule for their assessment. The trier of fact must evaluate the elements of an award and place a monetary value on the whole.”)
    Bates v. McKeon, 650 F. Supp. 476 (D. Conn. 1986)

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 21986: 11988: 21991: 11995: 22001: 12002: 12003: 22017: 12022: 119842026peak 1984 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Robinson v. Itt Continental Baking Co.478 A.2d 265 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984)
  2. Dibble v. Ferguson543 A.2d 294 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)
  3. Poulin v. Yasner781 A.2d 422 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001)
  4. Reed v. Scott1991 OK 113, 820 P.2d 445
  5. State v. Anderson813 A.2d 1039 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)
  6. Niles v. Evitts548 A.2d 1352 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.212 Conn. App. 339 (2022)
  2. Hammer v. Posta155 A.3d 801 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)
  3. State v. Anderson813 A.2d 1039 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)
  4. Bimler, Fleming, Tirrell v. Stop Shop, No. 110028 (Jan. 22, 2003)2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 1038 (2003)
  5. Hughes v. U-Haul Company, No. Cv 96 0396921 S (Sep. 27, 2002)2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 12384 (2002)
  6. Poulin v. Yasner781 A.2d 422 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001)

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
Kiniry v. Danbury Hosp., 439 A.2d 408 (Conn. 1981) 59
Boland v. Vanderbilt, 102 A.2d 362 (Conn. 1953) 42
Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 116 A.2d 167 (Conn. 1955) 18

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