Case ID: conn-app_6/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas Williams v. Trans-Atlantic Motors, Inc., et al.
    (3913)
    Dupont, C. J., Borden and Daly, Js.
    Argued February 5
    decision released April 1, 1986
    
      Harold N. Godlin, for the appellant (named defendant).
    
      John S. Terzis, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

The issue on appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the addition of prejudgment interest to a verdict awarding damages, after the verdict has been rendered in a specific amount by a jury and after judgment has been rendered thereon by the trial court. The jury rendered its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $10,956.09 in damages. The court accepted the verdict and rendered judgment thereon. The issue of prejudgment interest as damages had not been submitted to the jury. When a property execution was subsequently issued to satisfy this judgment, the court modified the judgment by adding prejudgment interest in the amount of $4586.96. The named defendant has appealed from that portion of the judgment involving prejudgment interest. This identical issue was considered in Canton Motorcar Works, Inc. v. DiMartino, 6 Conn. App. 447, 464, 505 A.2d 1255 (1986), wherein we held that, although a jury might consider whether interest should be awarded, it was error for the court to award prejudgment interest as damages in a jury case.

There is error in part, that part of the judgment involving prejudgment interest is set aside, and the case is remanded with direction to reinstate the original judgment.