# Berry v. Loiseau

> Supreme Court of Connecticut · August 12, 1992 · 223 Conn. 786

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7842432

## Case

- **Full name:** Ricky Berry v. Edward M. Loiseau, Sr.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Connecticut
- **Decided:** August 12, 1992
- **Citations:** 223 Conn. 786; 614 A.2d 414; 1992 Conn. LEXIS 285
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Berdon
- **Judges:** Berdon, Glass
- **Cited by:** 262 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7842432

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that trial court erred in directing verdict for defendants on false imprisonment claim where evidence showed that defendants took plaintiff by arm, escorted him to defendants’ office and car, used abusive and threatening language toward plaintiff, and displayed revolver
- explaining that, “[i]n order to award punitive or exemplary damages, evidence must reveal a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights”
- declining to abandon Connecticut's rule regarding the measurement of punitive damages in favor of the "common law" rule CT Page 9889 because "the common law rule allowing broad jury discretion is at odds with the generally accepted rule of compensation in civil cases."
- concluding that court was not bound by contingency-fee agreement in calculating punitive damages under state statute
- recognizing rule that common law punitive damages are limited to litigation costs

## Opinion text

Berdon, J.,
concurring. I concur only because I would not address the issue in part III A of the majority opinion concerning the rule limiting punitive damages to the party’s litigation costs. The question of whether we should abandon that rule was raised for the first time by the plaintiff on appeal. Public policy shifts in this state require a more meaningful review of the archaic rule, which was adopted in Hanna v. Sweeney, 78 Conn. 492 , 62 A. 785 (1906). See, e.g., General Statutes § 52-240b. 1
I concur in the opinion in all other respects.
General Statutes § 52-240b provides: “Punitive damages may be awarded if the claimant proves that the harm suffered was the result of the product seller’s reckless disregard for the safety of product users, con *834 sumers or others who were injured by the product. If the trier of fact determines that punitive damages should be awarded, the court shall determine the amount of such damages not to exceed an amount equal to twice the damages awarded to the plaintiff.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7842432. Public record. Not legal advice.