Free Transcript - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 1 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 923

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BEFORE:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : PETER D. MAINS and LORI M. MAINS: : Plaintiffs, : : vs : : SEA RAY BOATS, INC. : : Defendant. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

No. 3:01CV2402(AWT)

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT APRIL 8, 2008

JURY TRIAL VOLUME VI

HON. ALVIN W. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Diana Huntington, RDR-CRR Official Court Reporter and a Jury of Nine

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 2 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 924

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: JOHN L. SENNING, ESQ. 16 Saybrook Road Essex, Connecticut 06426 HERRICK NIKAS, LLP-CA 1201 Dove Street, Suite 560 Newport Beach, California 92660 BY: RACHEL D. LEV, ESQ. RICHARD J. NIKAS, ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT: DAY PITNEY, LLP CityPlace I Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 BY: JAMES H. ROTONDO, ESQ. DANIEL J. FOSTER, ESQ.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 3 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 925

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE QUESTION FROM THE JURY......................... 926 VERDICT........................................ 930

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 4 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 926

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the claim. THE COURT:

10:05 A.M. We have a note from the jury. It's

been marked as Court Exhibit 5. It says: "Under Connecticut Liability Act do

both strict liability and breach of express warranty need to be satisfied, or will either substantiate the claim?" I believe the answer is either will substantiate

The only concern I would have is I would like them to answer both questions. I would like under I.B for

them to answer both questions and that's what I would intend to say. MR. NIKAS: That's fine.

Given the fact that this arises under the Connecticut Liability Act, Your Honor, we'd like to repeat our request from yesterday regarding the definition of "product seller" under that Act which includes manufacturer in both the definition of 52-572m and also 52-572m(e) just to be sure that there is no misunderstanding as to what the statute provides. THE COURT: Are you concerned because of the

issue that was argued with respect to revocation? MR. NIKAS: No. This has nothing to do with the In the charge under the

revocation argument, Your Honor.

Connecticut Product Liability Act it uses the generic term

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 5 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 927

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

"seller."

My concern is that they would confuse that for

the description of the term "seller" contained in the revocation argument. THE COURT: That's what I asked. So it does Were

have something to do with that.

My question was:

you concerned that there would be confusion with the Revocation Act? MR. NIKAS: That's correct. Because the statute

is very clear that the seller in the statute encompasses a manufacturer because subsection (e) states -THE COURT: That's obvious.

I think the second element makes it clear enough. It says that the boat was expected to and did

reach the plaintiffs without substantial change in its condition from the time of its sale by the defendant. MR. NIKAS: I'm not sure it does, Your Honor, if

they conclude, for purposes of revocation, that the defendant was not the seller. They might be led to

believe that since it's not the seller, there's no liability that arises under the Act. THE COURT: Well, I'm reluctant to give a

supplemental charge at this time, especially with a question pending. Yesterday I thought your point went to

revocation, and I didn't understand what point you were making.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 6 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 928

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inquiry.

MR. NIKAS: THE COURT:

Specifically, Your Honor -I know what you said yesterday. And it is that you're I'm not going I

thought it went to revocation.

concerned about confusion with revocation.

to give a supplemental charge at this time because they're in the middle of deliberations and I don't want to be perceived as suggesting something to them. And I think

the fact that they are asking this question signals to me that they don't have a concern about that issue. We'll bring the jury in. (Whereupon, the jury entered the courtroom.) THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Please be seated everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, I've received a question from the jury. It reads as follows:

"Under Connecticut Liability Act do both strict liability and breach of express warranty need to be satisfied, or will either substantiate the claim?" The answer is: Is that clear? However, it will be helpful if you answer both questions in Part I.B of the verdict form. And it looks like I've responded to your If you have a follow-up question, please send Either.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 7 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 929

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

another note out. Okay, thank you very much. (Whereupon the jury left the courtroom.) THE COURT: from the jury again. We'll recess. Thank you. We'll wait to hear

(Whereupon, a recess followed.)

THE COURT:

Good afternoon.

Please be seated. It has

We've received a note from the jury. been marked as Court Exhibit 6. It reads as follows: been reached." So we'll bring the jury in. (Whereupon, the jury entered the courtroom.) THE COURT: gentlemen. Please be seated everyone.

"A unanimous verdict has

Good afternoon, ladies and

Mr. Foreperson, has the jury unanimously agreed upon its verdict? THE FOREPERSON: THE COURT: They have.

Would you please deliver the verdict

form to the courtroom deputy. (Pause.) THE COURT: I'm going to confirm on the record

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 8 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 930

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

one thing with respect to the verdict form. There is one question where the foreperson had one response marked and then crossed that out, initialed it, and put in the opposite response. And I read that as

you mean the response that you have not initialed. THE FOREPERSON: THE COURT: Correct.

Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time your verdict will be published. open court. You should pay close attention as the verdict is published. Following publication, I will ask whether any That means it will be read aloud in

party would like to have the jury polled. If the jury is polled, that means that each one of you would be asked whether the verdict, as published by the courtroom deputy, constitutes your individual verdict in all respects. Madam Clerk, would you please publish the verdict. THE CLERK: The case is Peter D. Mains and Lori

M. Mains, Plaintiffs, v. Sea Ray Boats, Defendant, Civil No. 3:01CV2402(AWT). Special Verdict Form reads as follows: We the jury unanimously find as follows: Part I. Connecticut Product Liability Act.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 9 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 931

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is: Yes. No.

A.

Have the plaintiffs proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is liable to them pursuant to the Connecticut Product Liability Act? The jury's response is: B. Yes.

Under which of their theories have the

plaintiffs proven the defendant is liable to them? Strict liability. And the jury's response is:

Breach of express warranty.

The jury's response

C.

Have the plaintiffs proven that the boat was

defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time they purchased it? The jury's response is: Part II. A. Yes.

Comparative Responsibility.

Has the defendant proven that the plaintiffs

were comparatively responsible for the damages they sustained? The jury's response is: B. Yes.

If the answer to the preceding question was

"yes," what is the percentage of the plaintiffs' responsibility for their own injuries? The jury's response is: Part III. Negligence. 3 percent.

Have the plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 10 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 932

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the evidence that the defendant was negligent during the course of making repairs to the boat and that the defendant's negligence caused them to suffer damages? The jury's response is: Part IV. A. Yes.

Comparative Negligence.

Has the defendant proven by a preponderance

of the evidence that any damages suffered by the plaintiffs were caused in whole or in part by their own negligence? The jury's response is: Part B. Yes.

If the answer to the preceding question

was "yes," is the plaintiffs' share of responsibility for causing those damages 51 percent or more? The jury's response is: Part C. No.

If the answer to the preceding question

was "no," what percentage is the plaintiffs' share of the responsibility for the damages they sustained? And the jury's response is: Part V. 3 percent.

Revocation of Acceptance.

Have the plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that they revoked their contract for purchase of the boat? The jury's response is: No. Compensatory

And I'm going to go to Part VII. Damages.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 11 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 933

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 duty.

What is the total amount of compensatory damages you determine to be fair, just and reasonable? Connecticut Product Liability Act. jury's response is: $15,500. The jury's response is: $15,500. And the

Negligence.

If you awarded damages on both claims, please state the total amount of damages awarded without double counting any particular item of damage. The jury's response is: $31,000.

And it's all signed and dated by the foreperson, Your Honor, on today's date. THE COURT: Thank you.

Would either side like the jury polled? MR. NIKAS: No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor.

MR. ROTONDO: THE COURT:

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have now done your It is inevitable that a decision by a jury will Making

gratify one party and disappoint the other.

decisions such as those that you've made, decisions which are important to the parties but also important to our society, is not easy. understand that. All of us know that and all of us

So all of us, the Court and the parties,

must be grateful to you for performing this important and very difficult assignment. And the reason that we must be

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 12 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 934

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

grateful to you is really quite simple.

All of us believe

in a system of law that places in our fellow citizens the responsibility for administering justice. All of us

believe in a system of self government, and that is a system in which jurors drawn from our community play a central role. So I thank you on behalf of the court system and the parties in this case for your contribution to our American system of justice. You are now discharged. Please note that you

are under no obligation to discuss this case with anyone, including the parties, the lawyers, or any members of the press. And in a moment after court adjourns or actually recesses, because I have something else scheduled, I'm going to come back so I can thank each of you individually. You may retire to the jury room. (Whereupon the jury left the courtroom.) THE COURT: Please be seated everyone.

Any questions from counsel? MR. ROTONDO: MR. NIKAS: THE COURT: No, Your Honor.

No, Your Honor. Well, thank you all very much. I

hope you get home soon.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 13 of 14

Vol. VI - Page 935

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

The courtroom deputy will work on the judgment probably by Monday. Thank you.

We'll recess. (Proceedings adjourned at 3:04 p.m.)

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:01-cv-02402-AWT

Document 197

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 14 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 /s/__________________________ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIANA HUNTINGTON, RDR, CRR Official Court Reporter 450 Main Street, Room #225 Hartford, Connecticut 06103 (860) 547-0580 I, Diana Huntington, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter for the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true and accurate transcription of my shorthand notes taken in the aforementioned matter to the best of my skill and ability. C E R T I F I C A T E

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com