Santiago v. Abramovitz

The plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion for a new trial on damages due to the jury’s zero verdict. She argues that the zero verdict was inadequate as a matter of law because:(1) the defendant stipulated before trial that his negligence caused the accident;(2) the defendant stipulated during trial that the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury because of the accident; and (3) the trial court gave the following jury instruction:

Based upon the admission of the defendant, the Court has determined and now instructs you that the defendant was negligent and such negligence…