A jury verdict for a plaintiff awarding zero damages in a cause of action sounding in negligence is ambiguous because it is inherently inconsistent to state, on the same verdict form, that a plaintiff has prevailed in proving the cause of action while simultaneously stating that the plaintiff has not proven an element of the cause of action.
Arnold v. Moriarty
Connecticut Appellate Court
February 25, 2013
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to Connecticut Law Tribune. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.