Case Name: Zaida MELENDEZ v. SPIN CYCLE LAUNDROMAT, LLC
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 2019-03-26
Citations: 205 A.3d 759
Docket Number: AC 41410
Parties: Zaida MELENDEZ
v.
SPIN CYCLE LAUNDROMAT, LLC
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 205
Pages: 759–763

Head Matter:
Zaida MELENDEZ
v.
SPIN CYCLE LAUNDROMAT, LLC
AC 41410
Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Argued January 30, 2019
Officially released March 26, 2019
Kevin C. Ferry, with whom was Monique S. Foley, New Britain, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Andrew B. Ranks, for the appellee (defendant).
Lavine, Moll and Beach, Js.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Zaida Melendez, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to set aside the jury verdict rendered in favor of the defendant, Spin Cycle Laundromat, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in (1) allowing the defendant to present evidence of the condition of the laundry folding table prior to its collapse, (2) allowing the defendant to question the plaintiff regarding her disability, and (3) denying the motion to set aside the verdict. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history underlie the appeal to this court. The defendant is a company that maintains a laundromat business in New Britain. On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff visited the defendant's business with her husband in order to do laundry. At approximately 9 p.m., while the plaintiff was folding clothes on a table in the defendant's laundromat, the table suddenly collapsed on the plaintiff's right foot. As a result, the plaintiff sustained a fracture to her right big toe. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant alleging that the collapse of the table and her injuries were a direct result of the defendant's negligence. The defendant denied the allegations and brought special defenses alleging negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The parties stipulated, among other things, that "the defendant [did] not blame the plaintiff in any way for her injuries." At trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of the defendant on November 30, 2017. On December 8, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict. On February 26, 2018, the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion, and she appealed.
The claims the plaintiff makes in this court are essentially the same claims she raised in the trial court in her motion to set aside the verdict. The plaintiff first raises two evidentiary claims: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to present evidence of the condition of the table prior to the incident; and (2) the trial court improperly allowed the defendant to question the plaintiff regarding her disability and prior work history. The trial court rejected these claims, concluding that evidence regarding the defendant's prior safety experience with laundry folding tables and the plaintiff's prior work history were relevant to issues of liability and damages, respectively, and were thus properly admitted into evidence. The trial court additionally rejected the plaintiff's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, shocked the sense of justice, or was based on partiality, prejudice, mistake, or corruption because it found no support in the record for such a claim. We have examined the record on appeal, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Because the trial court's memorandum of decision as to the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict thoroughly addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt that court's well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the applicable facts and law on the issues. Melendez v. Spin Cycle Laundromat, LLC , Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV-15-6031260-S, 2018 WL 1568930 (February 26, 2018) (reprinted at 188 Conn. App. at 810, 205 A.3d 759, 2019 WL 1320426 ). It would serve no useful purpose for this court to engage in any further discussion. See, e.g., D'Attilo v. Statewide Grievance Committee , 329 Conn. 624, 632, 188 A.3d 727 (2018) ; Fisk v. BL Cos. , 185 Conn. App. 671, 673, 198 A.3d 160 (2018) ; Smith v. BL Cos. , 185 Conn. App. 656, 659, 198 A.3d 150 (2018).
The judgment is affirmed.
APPENDIX
ZAIDA MELENDEZ v. SPIN CYCLE
LAUNDROMAT, LLC
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain
File No. CV-15-6031260-S
Memorandum filed February 26, 2018
Proceedings
Memorandum of decision on motion to set aside verdict and for new trial. Motion denied .
Kevin C. Ferry and Monique S. Foley , for the plaintiff.
Andrew B. Ranks , for the defendant.
Opinion
WIESE, J.
I
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arises out of a premises liability-negligence case brought by the plaintiff, Zaida Melendez, against the defendant, Spin Cycle Laundromat, LLC. The case was tried to a jury. On November 30, 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
In a motion dated December 8, 2017, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict and order a new trial pursuant to Practice Book § 16-35. In a memorandum of law dated December 27, 2017, the defendant set forth its objection to the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff filed a reply memorandum of law dated January 16, 2018. On February 23, 2018, the attorneys appeared in court and requested that the matter be taken on the papers.
II
DISCUSSION
A
Standard of Review
"Litigants . have a constitutional right to have issues of fact determined by a jury." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rejouis v. Greenwich Taxi, Inc ., 57 Conn. App. 778, 783, 750 A.2d 501, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 906, 755 A.2d 882 (2000). "The trial court possesses inherent power to set aside a jury verdict which, in the court's opinion, is against the law or the evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 782, 750 A.2d 501. "[A] trial court may set aside a verdict on a finding that the verdict is manifestly unjust because the jury, on the basis of the evidence presented, mistakenly applied a legal principle or because there is no evidence to which the legal principles of the case can be applied." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sargis v. Donahue , 142 Conn. App. 505, 511, 65 A.3d 20, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 914, 70 A.3d 38 (2013). Under the general verdict rule, the jury is presumed to have found all issues in favor of the defendants. Gajewski v. Pavelo , 229 Conn. 829, 835, 643 A.2d 1276 (1994). "[The trial court] should not set aside a verdict where it is apparent that there was some evidence upon which the jury might reasonably reach their conclusion, and should not refuse to set it aside where the manifest injustice of the verdict is so plain and palpable as clearly to denote that some mistake was made by the jury in the application of legal principles, or as to justify the suspicion that they or some of them were influenced by prejudice, corruption or partiality." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rejouis v. Greenwich Taxi, Inc. , supra, at 782, 750 A.2d 501. "Ultimately, [t]he decision to set aside a verdict entails the exercise of a broad legal discretion ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollution Control Authority , 278 Conn. 692, 702, 900 A.2d 498 (2006). B
Analysis
The plaintiff argues that the verdict should be set aside for the following reasons. First, the defendant should not have been allowed to ask questions regarding the defendant's prior safety experiences with laundry folding tables because of evidentiary rulings, such as Zheutlin v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. , 149 Conn. 364, 179 A.2d 829 (1962). Second, the court should not have permitted evidence relating to the plaintiff's prior work history because it was irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and should not have been admitted as evidence. Third, the court improperly asked the plaintiff's counsel whether he claimed his question in response to an objection because it drew unnecessary attention to the plaintiff's objection and created an unfair presumption that the defendant's objections were more meritorious than the plaintiff's objections. Fourth, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, shocked the sense of justice, or was based in partiality, prejudice, mistake, or corruption. Hence, the plaintiff argues the jury's verdict be set aside and the court should order a new trial.
In the present case, following its review of the record, the court finds that the evidence concerning the defendant's prior safety experiences with laundry folding tables and the plaintiff's prior work history were relevant to material issues in the case; in this instance, liability and damages. "Relevant evidence is evidence that has a logical tendency to aid the trier of fact in the determination of an issue." Hall v. Burns , 213 Conn. 446, 473, 569 A.2d 10 (1990). Such evidence, therefore, was properly admitted. The third basis for the plaintiff's motion lacks merit and doesn't warrant further discussion. Finally, the jury's general verdict was supported by the evidence and the reasonable inference that could be drawn from it.
A jury's verdict should not be set aside and a new trial ordered unless it is apparent that "injustice either was, or might have been, done [at] trial." Brown v. Keach , 24 Conn. 73, 76 (1855). The verdict's "manifest injustice [must be] so plain as to clearly indicate that the jury has disregarded the rules of law applicable to the case, or were influenced by prejudice, corruption, or partiality in reaching a decision." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Robinson v. Backes , 91 Conn. 457, 459, 99 A. 1057 (1917). The record does not support a finding that the jurors were influenced by prejudice, corruption, or partiality in this case.
III
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict and order a new trial is denied.
Affirmed. Melendez v. Spin Cycle Laundromat, LLC , 188 Conn. App. 807, 205 A.3d 759, 2019 WL 1320426 (2019).