Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

Plaintiff's Prayer for Personal Injury Relief Denied

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Modugno v. Colony Farms of Colchester, Inc., 954 A.2d 270 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008), the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the superior court's decision in favor of a defendant property owner regarding a premises liability action. In addition to rendering judgment in conformity to the jury verdict, the lower court also denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, which the instant court affirmed.

Background

In June 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that she had been injured after tripping on rocky terrain that led from the defendant's parking lot to a farm stand. Id. at 271. She claimed that the defendant permitted the rocky condition to exist and should have known of the risk of potential personal injuries. Id. at 271-72. In August 2005, the defendant answered the complaint by denying the plaintiff's allegations, and asserted two special defenses: (1) the plaintiff's action was barred, or in the alternative, limited by the doctrine of comparative negligence; and (2) any dangerous condition on the defendant's land was open and notorious. Id. at 272.

During trial, neither party submitted written interrogations to the jury, and ultimately the jury decided in favor of the defendant, which the court accepted. Id. In response, the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought a new trial. Id. The plaintiff appealed. Id.

Arguments

On appeal, the plaintiff renewed the claims contained in her motion for a new trial. Id. In the motion, the plaintiff alleged that

the court improperly (1) permitted the defendant to argue, during closing argument, that the plaintiff had failed to seek treatment for her alleged injuries during a certain period of time, (2) permitted the defendant to argue, during closing argument, that the plaintiff had not been prescribed ibuprofen during that same period, and (3) excluded testimony of the zoning regulations, permit requirements and site plan applicable to the defendant.
Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The instant court discussed the general verdict rule, which provides that when a jury renders a general verdict for one party and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will assume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party. Id. at 272. In order to apply the general verdict rule, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's claims solely related to either of the two grounds on which the jury may have based its verdict, or whether the claimed improprieties related to allegations contained in the defendant's special defenses. Id. at 273. The court held that the former applied; therefore, the general verdict rule precluded the court's review of claims involving the admissibility of evidence. Id. at 273-74. Additionally, because the record was inadequate, the court did not review the plaintiff's allegation "that the court improperly denied her motion for new trial because the defendant's assertions during closing argument improperly called into question the plaintiff's credibility." Id. at 274.

The case was decided on September 9, 2008.