Sec. 52-228b. Setting aside of verdict in action claiming money damages. - Connecticut Statutes

      Sec. 52-228b. Setting aside of verdict in action claiming money damages. No verdict in any civil action involving a claim for money damages may be set aside except on written motion by a party to the action, stating the reasons relied upon in its support, filed and heard after notice to the adverse party according to the rules of the court. No such verdict may be set aside solely on the ground that the damages are excessive unless the prevailing party has been given an opportunity to have the amount of the judgment decreased by so much thereof as the court deems excessive. No such verdict may be set aside solely on the ground that the damages are inadequate until the parties have first been given an opportunity to accept an addition to the verdict of such amount as the court deems reasonable.

      (February, 1965, P.A. 532; P.A. 82-160, S. 115.)

      History: P.A. 82-160 replaced "remit" with "have the amount of the judgment decreased by" and rephrased the section.

      Action of trial court setting aside a verdict will not be disturbed unless discretion has been abused, but where there was no evidence on which verdict for defendant could be set aside, case was remanded and court directed to render judgment on verdict of jury for defendant. 155 C. 704. Cited. 156 C. 323. Cited. 160 C. 219. Purpose of statute to provide opportunity for trial court to pass on claims of error discussed. 185 C. 510; overruled, see 239 C. 207. Cited. 189 C. 484. Cited. 194 C. 35. Cited. 198 C. 322. Cited. 202 C. 234. Cited. 203 C. 607. Cited. 204 C. 303. Cited. 205 C. 751. Cited. 208 C. 82. Cited. 209 C. 450; Id., 510. Cited. 210 C. 503. Cited. 221 C. 14; Id., 356; Id., 549. Judgment of appellate court in Lynch v. Granby Holdings, Inc., 32 CA 574, reversed. 230 C. 95. Cited. 234 C. 660. Cited. 235 C. 107. Court held that scope of appellate review is not limited to that provided by plain error doctrine where plaintiff fails to file motion to set aside verdict, overruling Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 C. 510 and its progeny. 239 C. 207. Secs. 52-228a and 52-228b are not inconsistent with one another. 246 C. 170. Because section permits "the parties" to reject an order of additur, it cannot be read to prohibit plaintiff from rejecting an order of additur. Id. There is no irreconcilable conflict between Secs. 52-228b and 52-216a mandating that one be accepted and the other abandoned. Id.

      Cited. 2 CA 174. Cited. 14 CA 289; judgment reversed, see 209 C. 450. Cited. 15 CA 6. Cited. 16 CA 379. Cited. 24 CA 739. Cited. 26 CA 231. Cited. 27 CA 135. Court should have given parties opportunity to accept a reasonable addition before ordering a new trial on all issues. Id., 471. Cited. 29 CA 151. Cited. 30 CA 125. Cited. 33 CA 575. Cited. 35 CA 239; Id., 301; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 107; Id., 850. Cited. 43 CA 453; Id., 475. Order of remittitur does not necessarily mean that verdict is tainted. 65 CA 441.

      Cited. 37 CS 1.