Verrillo v. Green

230 A.2d 20, 155 Conn. 694
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided May 10, 1967·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal claimed error in a portion of the charge to the jury on the issue of damages and in the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict as excessive.

In the light of the entire charge on the issue of damages and the limited exception taken to it, we find nothing erroneous. Lucier v. Meriden-Wallingford Sand & Stone Co., 153 Conn. 422, 426, 216 A.2d 818.

On the evidence presented, the jury could reasonably find that the damages awarded constituted fair, [695]*695just and reasonable compensation for the injuries the plaintiffs sustained. Accordingly, there was no error in the refusal of the court to set the verdict aside. Schaller v. Roadside Inn, Inc., 154 Conn. 61, 68, 221 A.2d 268; Lopez v. Price, 145 Conn. 560, 564, 569, 145 A.2d 127.

There is no error.

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

Verrillo v. Green, 230 A.2d 20, 155 Conn. 694 (Colo. 1967).

230 A.2d 20 (Verrillo v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lee v. Lee
368 A.2d 11 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1976)
Neal v. Shiels, Inc.
347 A.2d 102 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1974)
Birgel v. Heintz
301 A.2d 249 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1972)
Darling v. Burrone Bros., Inc.
292 A.2d 912 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1972)
Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc.
271 A.2d 94 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1970)