Munn v. Hotchkiss School

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying remittitur, but argues that Connecticut's remittitur jurisprudence is internally inconsistent and provides inadequate guidance, especially for noneconomic damages. The concurrence would likely regard the award as excessive under de novo review, yet concludes that existing precedent requires affirmance because the applicable abuse-of-discretion standard was not met. It urges legislative or judicial clarification of the governing standards.