Skip to main content

Hatcher v. Ramada Plaza, No. Cv 01-0807378s (Jan. 29, 2003)

Conn. Super. Ct.January 29, 2003No. No. CV 01-0807378S
Plaintiff WinRamada Plaza Hotel Conference Center$5,080 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
STENGEL, JUDGE.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Plaintiff prevailed at jury trial on negligence claim and recovered damages. Court granted plaintiff's motion for additur, increasing non-economic damages from $1,000 to $4,000, resulting in total damages of $5,080 after 20% reduction for comparative negligence.

What This Ruling Means

**Hotel Worker Wins Negligence Case Against Ramada Plaza** In this case, a worker sued Ramada Plaza Hotel Conference Center after being injured due to what they claimed was the hotel's negligence. The employee argued that the hotel failed to maintain safe working conditions, which led to their injury. A jury found in favor of the worker, determining that Ramada Plaza was indeed negligent and responsible for the injury. The jury initially awarded $1,000 for non-economic damages (like pain and suffering), but the court decided this amount was too low and increased it to $4,000. However, the court also found that the worker was partially at fault for the incident, reducing the total award by 20% for "comparative negligence." This brought the final damages to $5,080. **What This Means for Workers:** This case shows that employees can successfully hold their employers accountable when workplace negligence causes injuries. Even if a worker shares some blame for an accident, they can still recover damages from their employer. The court's decision to increase the damage award also demonstrates that judges will ensure injured workers receive fair compensation. Workers should know they have legal options when employer negligence contributes to workplace injuries, even if they weren't completely blameless.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.