440 Main Street | Ridgefield, CT 06877

Punative Damages in Connecticut

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 28, 2011 by Leave a Comment

An injured party who obtains an award of compensatory damages may, under certain circumstances, be entitled to a further award of punitive damages. In Connecticut, in order to obtain an award of punitive, or exemplary, damages the evidence must reveal a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights. Our state statutes provide for a number of circumstances where punitive damages can be awarded.

As is set forth in the Connecticut Civil Jury Instructions, punitive damages are damages awarded not to compensate the plaintiff for any injuries or losses but to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. Punitive damages may be awarded by the jury if they unanimously find that the conduct of the defendant was outrageous.

An award of punitive damages is not a common occurrence. It is estimated that punitive damage awards are made in less than four percent of all jury verdicts. However, when a punitive award is made, it can sometimes generate media attention making it seem more commonplace.

The U.S. Supreme Court in BMV of North America v. Gore (1996) set forth three guidelines by which punitive damage awards must be measured. Those guidelines require a Court to look at:

  1. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct;
  2. The ratio between the compensatory and punitive damages awarded; and
  3. Comparing the punitive damages award and whether criminal or civil fines could be levied against the defendant due to the misconduct.

These guidelines apply to all 50 states but are generally inapplicable to states that limit awards for punitive damage. Connecticut is one of the more than twenty states in the country that limits the amount that can be awarded in punitive damages. Most states that have limits on punitive damages require that they be proven by clear and convincing evidence.  Connecticut’s requirement, is for proof by a preponderance of the evidence, sometimes described as proof by 50.01%, which is a lesser civil burden of proof than that of clear and convincing evidence.

Connecticut’s limits in punitive damage awards were set forth by our Supreme Court in 1992 in the case of Berry v. Louiseau. In Berry, the Supreme Court limited the award of punitive damages to the actual cost of litigation, including attorney’s fees.

It is important to note in Connecticut both the difficulty involved in obtaining punitive damage awards and the limits involved once you obtain such an award.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Hedonic Damages in Connecticut

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 28, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Hedonic damages refer to an element of non-economic damages in a personal injury, medical malpractice or wrongful death case. Noneconomic damages are monies awarded as compensation for non-monetary losses and injuries which the plaintiff or, in a wrongful death case, plaintiff’s decedent has suffered as a result of the fault of another.  They are awarded for such things as physical pain and suffering and the destruction of the ability to enjoy life’s pleasures.

Hedonic damages are also referred to as compensation for  loss of life’s enjoyment, loss of life’s pleasure or lost value of life. The word Hedonic is derived from the Greek  “hedonikos” meaning delight and was first coined as a theory of recovery by Economics Professor Stanley Smith in Sherrod v. Berry, a 1987 Seventh Circuit wrongful death case.

Connecticut is only one of a handful of states that provides for hedonic damages in a wrongful death action. Section 52-555 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides a deceased person’s legal representative with the ability to maintain a cause of action against the responsible party for, among other things, the wrongful death of the decedent.

Connecticut’s wrongful death statute also provides for compensation for the loss of the capacity to enjoy life’s activities. Additionally, section 14-295 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides the decedent’s representation with the right to assert a claim for double or treble damages.

Double or treble damages may be awarded if it is specifically pled and proven that another party has deliberately, or with reckless disregard, operated a motor vehicle in violation of the specifically named statutes and if that violation was a substantial factor in causing the decedent’s death.

The Connecticut Supreme Court held in Floyd v. Fruit Industries, Inc (1957) that damages for wrongful death are not restricted to those arising from the mere destruction of earning capacity. Some damages are recoverable for the death itself, without regard to earning capacity.

Although there is no mathematical formula for determining Hedonic damages, the calculation of the loss must represent a crude monetary forecast of how the deceased’s life would have evolved.

An award of damages in a wrongful death, personal injury or medical malpractice case is left to the jury to determine and this calculation should not be disturbed or set aside unless the verdict is exorbitant, plainly excessive, or if the findings are contrary to law, not supported by proof or contrary to the Court’s explicit and unchallenged instructions.

The worth of a hedonic portion of a plaintiff’s claim will be based upon a number of factors including the plaintiff’s or decedent’s way of life, how active the person was, the person’s relationship with family members and friends and the lifestyle which the plaintiff or decedent led.

Filed Under: Latest Published Articles

Liability for Injuries When Discharging Illegal Fireworks

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 28, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Unfortunately, every Fourth-of-July we hear about accidents involving fireworks, and this year was no different. In Guilford, CT a man lost two fingers and a thumb as a result of illegal fireworks, according to police. A question was posed to me this week about liability involving fireworks in Connecticut. I was asked: “who would be responsible for injuries resulting from the illegal discharge of fireworks?”

The Courts in Connecticut recognize the doctrine of strict liability for dangerous activities and imposes it in limited circumstances. In strict liability cases, just as in negligence, a defendant’s activity must be the proximate cause, or the actual cause that is a substantial factor in the claimed harm, thereby causing the injury.

In Connecticut, strict liability was originally reserved for ultra-hazardous activities such as blasting and explosives. This category was later extended to pile driving and experiments involving highly volatile chemicals. In 2000, the case of Lipka v. DiLungo extended strict liability to the illegal discharge of fireworks.

In a strict liability case, the Plaintiff is not required to establish that his loss was caused by the Defendant’s negligence. It is sufficient to merely show that the Defendant engaged in an ultra-hazardous activity that caused the Plaintiff’s loss.

The Connecticut Supreme Court in Caporale v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc. stated that in order to impose liability without fault, the following factors had to be present:

  1. An instrumentality capable of producing harm;
  2. Circumstances and conditions in its use which, irrespective of lawful purpose or due care, involve a risk of probable injury to such a degree that the activity fairly can be said to be intrinsically dangerous to the person or property of others; and
  3. A causal relation between the activity and the injury for which damages are claimed.

So, if someone is injured through the illegal discharge of fireworks then liability would attach to the Defendant by virtue of strict liability.

Filed Under: Latest Published Articles

Slip and Fall in Waterbury, Connecticut Attorney

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 28, 2011 by Leave a Comment

You slip and fall in Waterbury, Connecticut.  This incident can ruin you physically, emotionally and economically.  Who will pay your bills?  How do you go about getting your lost wages?  How much money are you entitled to receive for your injuries?  Who is to blame?  These circumstances create very difficult times that require immediate answers.

If your case is tried before a jury, then at the conclusion of your case the trial judge will give instructions to the jury that tells them how to apply the facts to the law regarding a number of legal issues. These instructions are referred to as jury charges. One such charge that relates to your slip and fall in Waterbury, Connecticut would be Control:  The legal responsibility for maintaining premises in a reasonable safe condition depends upon who has control of those premises.  “Control” means the power or authority to manage, superintend, direct, oversee, restrict or regulate.

In considering whether a party is one who controls the premises, you can consider evidence of the following: acts of maintenance, such as fixing, repairing, cleaning, painting, performing upkeep – or the power to direct those activities; acts of inspection such as conducting or directing inspections or surveys of the property; acts restricting or allowing entry onto the premises; acts warning others of conditions or boundaries on the property, or setting or laying out rules for conduct upon the property; using the premises or property to store things, or to receive mail, visitors, customers or deliveries.

You must determine whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendant was in control of the premises at the relevant time.  If the plaintiff has not so proved, then you must end your inquiry and return a verdict for the defendant.  If the plaintiff has so proved, then you must consider whether the plaintiff has proved the other necessary parts of (her/his) case in making a determination of your verdict.

If you have been injured in aslip and fall in Waterbury, Connecticut, we are here to help you. Get a free copy of our book today so you can learn exactly what you should be doing. Don’t wait until it’s too late. Call us today for a FREE consultation.

Filed Under: Negligence, Personal Injury Tagged With:

Connecticut Tree Law and Liability for Injuries

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 22, 2011 by Leave a Comment

“What is the law as it relates to overhanging trees and their potential liability for damages in the State of Connecticut?” was the question recently posed.

The law, in any jurisdiction, is generally derived from two separate sources, which are: (1) statutory law, or law which comes from legislatively enacted statutes; and (2) case law, or laws which are interpreted and handed down by Judges.

In Connecticut, the statute relating to damages for cutting trees, timber or shrubbery can be found in Section 52-560 which provides:

Any person who cuts, destroys or carries away any trees, timber or shrubbery, standing or lying on the land of another or on public land, without license of the owner, and any person who aids therein, shall pay to the party injured five times the reasonable value of any tree intended for sale or use as a Christmas tree and three times the reasonable value of any other tree, timber or shrubbery; but, when the court is satisfied that the defendant was guilty through mistake and believed that the tree, timber or shrubbery was growing on his land, or on the land of the person for whom he cut the tree, timber or shrubbery, it shall render judgment for no more than its reasonable value.

The statute provides liability for persons who cut any trees, timber or shrubbery standing on the land of another, but what happens in the situation where a tree is on the boundary line of two properties. In the 1896 case of Robinson v. Clapp our Supreme Court held that each of the owners upon whose land any part of a branch of a tree stands has an interest in the tree shall not do anything to his/her part so as to unreasonably injure or destroy the tree.

So what liability results from hanging branches or falling trees on to the property of another? In early times there was generally no liability for trees falling on neighbor’s properties which came about because of large land holdings existing in a primitive state.

The law has evolved so as to apply the general rules of negligence. In other words, a tree owner has a duty to an adjoining land owner or others to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm. Connecticut courts have held that property owners are required to guard against probable dangers and they have an affirmative obligation to keep property over which they have
control in a safe condition.

In Toomey v. State of Connecticut (1994), a tree branch fell from the
defendant’s property resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s decedent. In Toomey, the Court held that an owner of a tree has a duty of reasonable care relative to the tree including inspection to make sure it is safe. In other Connecticut cases, it has been held that a defendant will be deemed negligent for failing to look or in failing to observe what is visible when he does look. Further, if the condition is one which the defendant would become aware through the reasonable exercise of his faculties then the defendant is chargeable with notice.

If you are aware of some problem or potential danger it is best to put the owner of the tree on notice, preferably in writing, to provide that person with an actual notice rather than a constructive notice, which is what the owner should have known under the circumstances.

In summary, it is best to consult with any attorney before attempting any self help in cutting down offending tree branches or if you receive injuries resulting from falling trees or branches.

Filed Under: CT News, Latest Published Articles

Stamford Slip and Fall Jury Verdict

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 12, 2011 by Leave a Comment

July 12, 2011 – Stamford Connecticut sidewalk slip and fall jury verdict totals $480,000 –$401,000 non-economic damages and $79,000 economic damages.  The Plaintiff was injured while walking on sidewalk in Stamford Connecticut. His right leg got caught on a sharp metal lettering around the outside of a concrete bollard that was about 3 feet high.  The edge of the lettering caused a laceration that requiring 37 staples to close.  He also fell over the bollard injuring his left knee. He required a total knee replacement. The jury found 100% negligence against the defendant and also found the condition constituted a nuisance.

Filed Under: CT News, Negligence, Personal Injury, Slip and Fall

Milford CT Car Accident and Negligence

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 9, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Seriously injured in a Milford CT car accident case?  We can help.  Get a copy of our FREE book today “The Crash Course On Personal Injury Claims in Connecticut”.  Find out what to do and find out how you could be harming your case.

Your case has been presented to the jury and they are about to begin deciding or deliberating your case in order to reach a verdict. How are the jurors to take all of the evidence that has been presented to them and then decide how much money you are entitled to receive? The trial judge will give jury charges or instructions to the jurors so they will know how to take Connecticut law and apply it to the facts that have been proven to them. One issue that the jury needs to decide is Negligence. The judge might instruct or charge the jury on that issue by stating:

3.6-1 Negligence (Definition)—Revised to January 1, 2008: Negligence is the violation of a legal duty which one person owes to another to care for the safety of that person or that person’s property.

Put our decades of legal experience to work for you. Let our Harvard

Law School trained negotiator deal with the insurance company. Let us worry about your case so you can do everything you need to do to get better. The call, the book and the consultation are all FREE. Call us at (888) 842-8466. Visit us at www.hcwlaw.com and get additional information or tell us about your case online. We’ll deal with the insurance company, you get well!

 

Filed Under: Connecticut Auto Accident Law, Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Discharging Illegal Fireworks, Liability for Injuries

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 8, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Unfortunately, every Fourth-of-July we hear about accidents involving fireworks, and this year was no different. In Guilford, CT a man lost two fingers and a thumb as a result of illegal fireworks, according to police. A question was posed to me this week about liability involving fireworks in Connecticut. I was asked: “who would be responsible for injuries resulting from the illegal discharge of fireworks?”

The Courts in Connecticut recognize the doctrine of strict liability for dangerous activities and imposes it in limited circumstances. In strict liability cases, just as in negligence, a defendant’s activity must be the proximate cause, or the actual cause that is a substantial factor in the claimed harm, thereby causing the injury.

In Connecticut, strict liability was originally reserved for ultra-hazardous activities such as blasting and explosives. This category was later extended to pile driving and experiments involving highly volatile chemicals. In 2000, the case of Lipka v. DiLungo extended strict liability to the illegal discharge of fireworks.

In a strict liability case, the Plaintiff is not required to establish that his loss was caused by the Defendant’s negligence. It is sufficient to merely show that the Defendant engaged in an ultra-hazardous activity that caused the Plaintiff’s loss.

The Connecticut Supreme Court in Caporale v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc. stated that in order to impose liability without fault, the following factors had to be present:

  1. An instrumentality capable of producing harm;
  2. Circumstances and conditions in its use which, irrespective of lawful purpose or due care, involve a risk of probable injury to such a degree that the activity fairly can be said to be intrinsically dangerous to the person or property of others; and
  3. A causal relation between the activity and the injury for which damages are claimed.

So, if someone is injured through the illegal discharge of fireworks then liability would attach to the Defendant by virtue of strict liability.

Filed Under: Latest Published Articles Tagged With: , , , , ,

Connecticut Wrongful Death Cases and Reasonable Care

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 6, 2011 by Leave a Comment

An accident case resulting in a Connecticut wrongful death can be devastating to the family of the innocent victim.  Any Connecticut wrongful death claim must be investigated immediately so the rights of the survivors are protected.  You need an experienced Connecticut wrongful death lawyer to help you through this most difficult time.  Find out what you need to be doing right away.  Contact us today.

Jury charges are instructions that the trial court judge will give to the jurors after the closing statements have been made by the Connecticut wrongful death attorneys but before they begin deliberations. There charges are the law in the State of Connecticut as it relates to certain decisions, which the jury will be called upon to make. One decision that the jury will have to make involves Reasonable Care and an appropriate jury charge might be:

3.6-4 Reasonable Care—Revised to January 1, 2008: In determining the care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same circumstances, you should consider all of the circumstances which were known or should have been known to the defendant at the time of the conduct in question.  Whether care is reasonable depends upon the dangers that a reasonable person would perceive in those circumstances. It is common sense that the more dangerous the circumstances, the greater the care that ought to be exercised.

Injured, hurt, angry, and/or confused as a result of your Connecticut car accident case? You have so many different emotions that you are confronted with on a daily basis. Let us help you get answers to all of the questions you have to help put your mind at ease. Put our decades of legal experience to work for you. Let us handle the insurance company; you have your health to deal with. Contact us to get a FREE copy of our book “The Crash Course on Personal Injury Claims in Connecticut”. Visit us online at www.hcwlaw.com and order the book or tell us about your case or call us at (888) 842-8466 to get your questions answered right away or to schedule a free consultation.

Filed Under: Wrongful Death Tagged With: , , ,

Stamford Slip and Fall Verdict 4.4 Million Dollars

Bridgeport, Norwalk, Danbury, Ridgefield, Stamford, Connecticut

July 4, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Stamford slip and fall verdict  $4.4 million dollars.  A 36 year old man suffered a severe ankle fracture which required an immediate open reduction internal fixation with plates and 21 screws after he slipped on a wet gym floor.  There were two (2) defendants who the jury decided shared responsibility for the condition.  The Plaintiff required a second surgery to remove the screws and then developed a neuroma at the site of the scar and now requires an ankle fusion.  Plaintiff is significantly disabled and walks with a limp.  He was awarded economic damages for past and future medical expenses in the amount of $400,000.00.  He was awarded non-economic damages totaling $4,000,000.00.

Filed Under: CT Accident & Injury Law | Liability Statutes, CT News, Negligence, Personal Injury, Slip and Fall
«Older Posts