Connecticut Supreme Court Upholds Truck Accident Damages Award

March 29, 2012

The complexity of truck accident liability is based on many factors. Federal truck driver regulations, multiple potentially liable parties and serious medical issues can all come into play, all of which make working closely with an experienced personal injury lawyer an important consideration.

While many personal injury and wrongful death claims settle before trial, sometimes the case becomes challenging because of the nature of trial practice and the necessity of multiple appeals. A recent Connecticut Supreme Court opinion, Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking reveals the extent to which a truck accident injury victim had to go to obtain the compensation he deserved after first being injured in 2003.

The injury victim was driving on I-91 in Hartford when his car was rear-ended by a van that had in turn been struck from behind by a tractor trailer. The 64-year-old driver of the car was taken by ambulance to Hartford Hospital after complaining of neck, shoulder and back pain. He soon followed up with multiple visits to his own physician, consultations with orthopedic specialists and physical therapy, and was assessed with permanent injuries and loss of function in his spine and shoulders.

Seeking Compensation for Personal Injury Damages in Connecticut

The truck accident lawsuit finally went to trial five years later, and the plaintiff testified that the chronic pain caused by the injuries continued. The trucking company admitted that its driver had caused the accident, and the parties stipulated to a figure for the plaintiff's life expectancy.

The jury awarded the truck accident victim $700,000 for the harm he had suffered, including both economic and non-economic damages. Disputing the amount of non-economic damages, the trucking company moved for a new trial, an order setting aside the verdict and a "remittitur" order requesting the court to reduce the value of non-economic damages.

The trial court judge decided that the non-economic damages (based on the plaintiff's pain and suffering and his permanent injuries) were excessive, and reduced them by over half a million dollars. Based on the plaintiff's failure to remit that amount, the judge also set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.

Helping a Client Overturn an Unfavorable Decision on Appeal

The plaintiff appealed in 2009 from the trial court judgment, claiming that the judge's order of remittitur was improper absent a determination that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, shocked the sense of justice or was based on prejudice, partiality, mistake or corruption. The Appellate Court of Connecticut agreed, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for reinstatement of the jury's verdict on the amount of damages.

The defendant trucking company appealed from the Appellate Court's decision, arguing that it did not acknowledge the lower court's determination that exceptional circumstances justified the reduction of damages. The Supreme Court's review had to balance two competing factors: the high standard that must be met for trial judges to set aside jury verdicts, and the deference accorded by appellate courts to lower court judges' authority to conduct trials.

Ultimately, this required the Supreme Court to do something that is somewhat rare on appeal: a comprehensive reassessment of the evidence presented at trial. Based on a detailed review of the plaintiff's treatment history and medical records that documented range of motion, MRI results, pain thresholds and other evidence of the degree of harm, the unanimous court found that the jury's decision was "within the range of reasonable compensation, however generous that award may be."

Having concluded that the evidence supported the jury's award, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering remittitur, and affirmed the Appellate Court decision remanding the case for reinstatement of the full $700,000 damages award.

Diligent Protection of an Injured Client's Interests

No injury victim or wrongful death survivor wants to wait almost a decade for the wheels of justice to finally grind to a halt. In the aftermath of motor vehicle accidents involving cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicyclists or pedestrians, a prompt resolution of liability and damages issues is every plaintiff's wish.

At the same time, those who are injured by the negligence or recklessness of other parties need to fully consider their definition of a positive legal outcome. Honest counsel and aggressive representation from a personal injury attorney can help plaintiffs pursue compensation that meets their expectation of justice.

Article provided by The Pickel Law Firm, LLC
Visit us at www.alanpickel.com