CT Gen Stat § 52-228b (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 52 - Civil Actions|Chapter 900 - Court Practice and Procedure|Section 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; 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; 194 C. 35; 198 C. 322; 202 C. 234; 203 C. 607; 204 C. 303; 205 C. 751; 208 C. 82; 209 C. 450; Id., 510; 210 C. 503; 221 C. 14; Id., 356; Id., 549. Judgment of Appellate Court in 32 CA 574 reversed. 230 C. 95. Cited. 234 C. 660; 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 185 C. 510 and its progeny. 239 C. 207. Sec. 52-228a and this section are not inconsistent with one another; because section permits “the parties” to reject an order of additur, it cannot be read to prohibit plaintiff from rejecting an order of additur; there is no irreconcilable conflict between this section and Sec. 52-216a mandating that one be accepted and the other abandoned. 246 C. 170.Cited. 2 CA 174; 14 CA 289; judgment reversed, see 209 C. 450; 15 CA 6; 16 CA 379; 24 CA 739; 26 CA 231; 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; 30 CA 125; 33 CA 575; 35 CA 239; Id., 301; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 107; Id., 850; 43 CA 453; Id., 475. Order of remittitur does not necessarily mean that verdict is tainted. 65 CA 441. Trial court was within its discretion to find that a jury's verdict, which compensated plaintiff for past medical bills and the cost of a future surgery that would produce pain, suffering and disability, but that failed to provide plaintiff with noneconomic damages, was improper as a matter of law. 112 CA 467. Section applies only to verdict for plaintiff that may be deemed inadequate, and a court may not order an additur to a defendant's verdict. 117 CA 658.Cited. 37 CS 1.