January 30, 2019
to recover damages for the defendant's alleged
negligence, and for other relief, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of New Britain and tried to
the jury before Wiese, J.; verdict for the defendant;
thereafter, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to
set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and rendered
judgment in accordance with the verdict, from which the
plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
C. Ferry, with whom was Monique S. Foley, for the appellant
B. Ranks, for the appellee (defendant).
Lavine, Moll and Beach, Js.
plaintiff, Zaida Melendez, appeals from the judgment of the
trial court denying her motion to set aside the jury verdict
rendered in favor of the defendant, Spin Cycle Laundromat,
LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court
erred in (1) allowing the defendant to present evidence of
the condition of the laundry folding table prior to its
collapse, (2) allowing the defendant to question the
plaintiff regarding her disability, and (3) denying the
motion to set aside the verdict. We affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found,
and procedural history underlie the appeal to this court. The
defendant is a company that maintains a laundromat business
in New Britain. On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff visited
the defendant's business with her husband in order to do
laundry. At approximately 9 p.m., while the plaintiff was
folding clothes on a table in the defendant's laundromat,
the table suddenly collapsed on the plaintiff's right
foot. As a result, the plaintiff sustained a fracture to her
right big toe. The plaintiff commenced an action against the
defendant alleging that the collapse of the table and her
injuries were a direct result of the defendant's
negligence. The defendant denied the allegations and brought
special defenses alleging negligence on the part of the
plaintiff. The parties stipulated, among other things, that
‘‘the defendant [did] not blame the plaintiff in
any way for her injuries.'' At trial, the jury
returned a general verdict in favor of the defendant on
November 30, 2017. On December 8, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
motion to set aside the verdict. On February 26, 2018, the
trial court denied the plaintiff's motion, and she
claims the plaintiff makes in this court are essentially the
same claims she raised in the trial court in her motion to
set aside the verdict. The plaintiff first raises two
evidentiary claims: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the
defendant to present evidence of the condition of the table
prior to the incident; and (2) the trial court improperly
allowed the defendant to question the plaintiff regarding her
disability and prior work history. The trial court rejected
these claims, concluding that evidence regarding the
defendant's prior safety experience with laundry folding
tables and the plaintiff's prior work history were
relevant to issues of liability and damages, respectively,
and were thus properly admitted into evidence. The trial
court additionally rejected the plaintiff's claim that
the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, shocked
the sense of justice, or was based on partiality, prejudice,
mistake, or corruption because it found no support in the
record for such a claim. We have examined the record on
appeal, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and conclude
that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
the trial court's memorandum of decision as to the
plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict thoroughly
addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt that
court's well reasoned decision as a proper statement of
the applicable facts and law on the issues. Melendez v.
Spin Cycle Laundromat, LLC, Superior Court, judicial
district of New Britain, Docket No. CV-15-6031260-S (February
26, 2018) (reprinted at 188 Conn.App., A.3d). It would serve
no useful purpose for this court to engage in any further
discussion. See, e.g., D'Attilo v. Statewide
Grievance Committee, 329 Conn. 624, 632, 188 A.3d 727
(2018); Fisk v. BL Cos., 185 Conn.App. 671, 673, 198
A.3d 160 (2018); Smith v. BL Cos., 185 Conn.App.
656, 659, 198 A.3d 150 (2018).
judgment is affirmed.
MELENDEZ v. SPIN CYCLE ...