Nastri v. Vermillion Bros., Inc

In Nastri v. Vermillion Bros., Inc., 46 Conn. Supp. 285, 289, 747 A.2d 1069 (1998), the plaintiff's counsel made a golden rule argument with respect to the jury's calculation of noneconomic damages. To counteract its potentially prejudicial effect, the Nastri court specifically addressed the argument in its instructions to the jury and cautioned the jurors in strong terms not to let sympathy affect their decision. The court ultimately concluded that the argument had not influenced the jurors because the noneconomic damages award was relatively low and the jury assessed 25 percent of the responsibility for damages to the plaintiff. The court stated that "whether or not the plaintiff's counsel crossed the line into golden rule territory, the court concludes that the defendants suffered no injury as a result of his argument and were not deprived of their right to a fair trial." Id., 291.