Excessive Verdict As a Matter of Law
"When a verdict is excessive as a matter of law, the amount of the remittitur, which the statutes, General Statutes 52-216a and 52-228b, require to be ordered before a new trial may be had, rests largely within the discretion of the trial court.
'Its action is entitled to full support unless it abused its discretion.' Allen v. Giuliano, 144 Conn. 573, 578, 135 A.2d 904 (1957).
'In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we must make every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action.' Brooks v. Singer, 147 Conn. 719, 720, 158 A.2d 745 (1960)." Alfano v. Insurance Center of Torrington, 203 Conn. 607, 614, 525 A.2d 1338 (1987); Preston v. Phelps Dodge Copper Products Co., 35 Conn. App. 850, 864, 647 A.2d 364 (1994).
"A jury's determination of damages should be set aside only when the verdict is clearly exorbitant and excessive; Wochek v. Foley, 193 Conn. 582, 586, 477 A.2d 1015 (1984); or the size of the verdict is so shocking to a sense of justice that it leads us to the conclusion that the jury was influenced by prejudice, partiality, mistake or corruption." Sciola v. Shernow, 22 Conn. App. 351, 357, 577 A.2d 1081, cert. denied, 216 Conn. 815, 580 A.2d 60 (1990).