Faulkner v. Gardner, Extr.

Connecticut Superior Court

Faulkner v. Gardner, Extr.

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 390, 5 Conn. Supp. 390, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 176

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 7, 1937

DocketFile #53601

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 390 (Faulkner v. Gardner, Extr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Faulkner v. Gardner, Extr., 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 390, 5 Conn. Supp. 390, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

WYNNE, J.

The defendant rests his motion to set aside on the claim that the verdict is excessive. The Court does not subscribe to this view. The plaintiff testified as to what she thought was the reasonable value of her services. There was no evidence to dispute her estimate. In argument only was there a discussion of the amount of her bill. It was there *391 pointed out that her claim amounted to about a dollar an hour. In the Court’s opinion such a rate for the services of a companion where rendered several hours a day, and at vary' ing times, is not excessive. It would be different if considered in the light of full time employment.

Only in cases where the amount allowed is so clearly ex' cessive as to indicate that the jury were unduly swayed would the Court be justified in interfering. There is nothing to shock one’s conscience in the present case. The amount ah lowed is less than the claim presented to the executor. On the amount to be allowed, the rule requires only the best approximation to certainty. Throughout the charge the jury were told that the plaintiff had the burden of proving the reasonable value of her services and that it was their function to decide; and that they were to be guided by what was fair and just. It cannot be said that they departed from the prim ciples that were explained for their guidance. They were generous, but in view of all the circumstances, including the ability to pay, not unjust.

The motion to set aside is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WYNNE, J.

The defendant rests his motion to set aside on the claim that the verdict is excessive. The Court does not subscribe to this view. The plaintiff testified as to what she thought was the reasonable value of her services. There was no evidence to dispute her estimate. In argument only was there a discussion of the amount of her bill. It was there *391 pointed out that her claim amounted to about a dollar an hour. In the Court’s opinion such a rate for the services of a companion where rendered several hours a day, and at vary' ing times, is not excessive. It would be different if considered in the light of full time employment.

Only in cases where the amount allowed is so clearly ex' cessive as to indicate that the jury were unduly swayed would the Court be justified in interfering. There is nothing to shock one’s conscience in the present case. The amount ah lowed is less than the claim presented to the executor. On the amount to be allowed, the rule requires only the best approximation to certainty. Throughout the charge the jury were told that the plaintiff had the burden of proving the reasonable value of her services and that it was their function to decide; and that they were to be guided by what was fair and just. It cannot be said that they departed from the prim ciples that were explained for their guidance. They were generous, but in view of all the circumstances, including the ability to pay, not unjust.

The motion to set aside is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 390, 5 Conn. Supp. 390, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faulkner-v-gardner-extr-connsuperct-1937.