Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** DONNA CALVI v. DIEGO R. AGRO ET AL. (AC 19645)
Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Mihalakos, Js. Argued June 1--officially released September 5, 2000 Counsel

Kathleen L. Nastri, with whom, on the brief, was David J. Vegliante, for the appellant (plaintiff). Leo J. McManus, for the appellee (defendant Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company).
Opinion

SPEAR, J. In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, Donna Calvi, appeals from the judgment of the trial court setting aside that portion of a jury verdict that awarded future medical expenses to her. She claims that the court improperly set aside the verdict on the ground that the evidence failed to support such an award. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant Diego Agro, an uninsured motorist, alleging that she sustained injuries on May 27, 1995, when Agro's pickup

truck struck her vehicle from behind. The court entered a default judgment against Agro for his failure to appear at trial. The defendant Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan), the plaintiff's insurer, stipulated to liability on the part of Agro because of his status as an uninsured tortfeasor.1 The case was tried to the jury on the issue of damages as against Metropolitan. The jury heard testimony from the plaintiff's physician, Ronald S. Paret. Paret testified that the plaintiff sustained a 7 percent permanent partial disability to the cervical spine from her motor vehicle accident and that her symptoms will remain with her for the remainder of her life. Paret also stated that, in the absence of ``catastrophic ligament failure,'' the plaintiff was not restricted in her activities and that she could perform strenuous activities such as shoveling six inches of snow from a driveway. Paret then gave the following testimony as to the expected consequences of performing such a task: ``I would expect that a typical person who had a cervical injury of that or a similar amount would be able to shovel a driveway . . . and that they then have a couple, three days, a week, two weeks of more muscle spasm and occasionally they come back to me and they get more physical therapy and they take medication . . . .'' Paret finally testified that it is difficult to determine precisely what activities would or would not aggravate a cervical condition in a patient. The jury also heard testimony from the plaintiff that three years after her accident she still experiences pain that limits her activities. After the presentation of evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $3000 in noneconomic damages and of $200,365.73 in economic damages, $197,352 of which was for future medical expenses. Metropolitan filed a motion to set aside the verdict as to the award of future medical expenses only, and the court determined that ``the award to the plaintiff for future economic damages [was] without foundation in the evidence . . . .'' The court then set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. This appeal followed. We first address our standard of review regarding the plaintiff's claims. ``We review a trial court's decision to set aside a verdict by determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 227

Download Calvi v. Agro.pdf

Connecticut Law