Finnegan v. Ramsdell, No. Cv 96-0475869s (Jul. 30, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Finnegan v. Ramsdell, No. Cv 96-0475869s (Jul. 30, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9664

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 30, 1998

DocketNo. CV 96-0475869S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9664 (Finnegan v. Ramsdell, No. Cv 96-0475869s (Jul. 30, 1998)) 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

Finnegan v. Ramsdell, No. Cv 96-0475869s (Jul. 30, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9664 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER(# 121, 122) After hearing held on plaintiff's motion for additur and/or to set aside verdict, it is hereby Ordered as follows:

The motions are denied for the following reasons:

"On issues where the evidence allows room for reasonable differences of opinion among fair-minded people, if the conclusion of the jury is one that reasonably could have been reached, it must stand even though the trial court might have reached a different result. See Jacobs v. Goodspeed, supra, 180 Conn. 417. 'A verdict should not be set aside . . . where it is apparent that there was some evidence on which the jury might reasonably have reached its conclusion.'" Salaman v. Waterbury, 44 Conn. App. 211, 214, 687 A.2d 1318, cert. granted on other grounds, 240 Conn. 921, 692 A.2d 816 (1997). . . . The jury was not compelled to accept the plaintiffs claim as to the severity of her injuries, no matter how persuasive that evidence might have seemed to the trial court. . . . A fact finder is not required to award noneconimic damages simply because economic damages are awarded. See Childs v. Bainer, supra, 235 Conn. 121." Parasco v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 48 Conn. App. 671, 676 (1998).

BERNARD D. GAFFNEY JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER(# 121, 122) After hearing held on plaintiff's motion for additur and/or to set aside verdict, it is hereby Ordered as follows:

The motions are denied for the following reasons:

"On issues where the evidence allows room for reasonable differences of opinion among fair-minded people, if the conclusion of the jury is one that reasonably could have been reached, it must stand even though the trial court might have reached a different result. See Jacobs v. Goodspeed, supra, 180 Conn. 417. 'A verdict should not be set aside . . . where it is apparent that there was some evidence on which the jury might reasonably have reached its conclusion.'" Salaman v. Waterbury, 44 Conn. App. 211, 214, 687 A.2d 1318, cert. granted on other grounds, 240 Conn. 921, 692 A.2d 816 (1997). . . . The jury was not compelled to accept the plaintiffs claim as to the severity of her injuries, no matter how persuasive that evidence might have seemed to the trial court. . . . A fact finder is not required to award noneconimic damages simply because economic damages are awarded. See Childs v. Bainer, supra, 235 Conn. 121." Parasco v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 48 Conn. App. 671, 676 (1998).

BERNARD D. GAFFNEY JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnegan-v-ramsdell-no-cv-96-0475869s-jul-30-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack