Connecticut’s apportionment statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h, removes joint and several liability from the apportionment equation ensuring defendants only pay their specific percentage of fault. If a plaintiff is found to be more than 50 percent at fault, recovery is barred entirely. This modified comparative negligence system is perceived as fair because the legal framework prevents any one party from being forced to pay more than their share.[i] However, the recent $45 million verdict in Zemo v. MyHoopty.com, LLC, challenges this perception and demonstrates how, in practice, a corporate defendant may face the burden of a Nuclear Verdict®.

The matter arises from a 2021 motorcycle accident in Oakville, Connecticut. The plaintiff, Don Zemo, IV, was a 22-year-old Marine reservist who suffered catastrophic injuries, including full paraplegia, when his motorcycle collided with an SUV. The SUV was exiting Welton Street, a private roadway, onto Main Street when the collision occurred. Welton Street, a private roadway maintained by the abutting property owners, is subject to the same yield requirements as a driveway.[ii] Consequently, the SUV driver had a legal obligation to yield and give way to traffic approaching on Main Street.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that a tow truck operated by MyHoopty.com, LLC, had been parked on MyHoopty’s leased property near the entrance of Welton Street and Main Street in such a way that it created a blind spot. The plaintiff’s theory was that the positioning of the tow truck obstructed the view of both the SUV driver attempting to turn onto Main Street and the plaintiff traveling down Main Street on his motorcycle.

At trial, the jury assigned 65 percent of the fault to MyHoopty, 25 percent to the SUV driver, and 10 percent to Zemo himself.[iii] This apportionment of the verdict left MyHoopty.com responsible for nearly two-thirds of the $45 million verdict despite the fact that the tow truck did not collide with anyone. Of the award, roughly $36.5 million represented non-economic damages for pain and suffering.

Plaintiff’s attorneys made the road and the tow truck’s positioning the focus of the trial, diverting attention away from the SUV driver’s failure to yield and plaintiff’s admission that he was driving over 66 mph, well above the speed limit.[iv] Ordinarily, a jury might place primary responsibility on the SUV driver for failing to yield when entering a public street but plaintiff’s attorneys were able to shift responsibility from the individual motorist onto the corporate defendant.

Plaintiff’s attorneys hired multiple experts including an accident reconstructionist and human factor experts. They held three focus groups and hired jury experts.[v] Their strategy proved persuasive in convincing the jury that the corporate defendant was the party most responsible for causing the accident. Jurors were likely persuaded by the relatable picture painted by the plaintiff’s attorneys in their arguments and expert support allowing the jury to see themselves unable to see around a large, parked vehicle when attempting to enter a street. The result was a verdict placing the majority of the blame on the corporate defendant.

MyHoopty’s defense emphasized that the SUV driver still had a statutory duty to yield, regardless of sightlines, and that Zemo himself bore responsibility for his speed and positioning. There is no public indication that the defense used experts to counter the narrative presented by Zemo’s attorneys. Nevertheless, the defense’s motion to set aside the verdict after it was rendered did not address expert testimony that may have countered Zemo’s expert testimony. Instead, the motion focused on the admission of a lease related to the right-of-way held by abutting owners and the excessive nature of the award.[vi] The jury ultimately accepted that the tow truck was the dominant cause of the crash.

Under Connecticut’s apportionment framework, the state does not allow contribution among tortfeasors. Once the jury decides the percentages, those numbers are final. A defendant who receives a high allocation has no ability to recover from co-defendants after judgment. If jurors perceive one defendant as the “deep pocket,” they may assign an outsized share of responsibility to that defendant. Even though the tow truck did not strike Zemo, the jury was permitted to find its placement contributed to the injury. By statute, any “party whose negligence was a proximate cause of the injury” can be apportioned fault. The result was that MyHoopty became the central defendant in a case where it should have played a smaller part.

Takeaway

Corporate defendants cannot rely on the statute alone to shield them from disproportionate outcomes; they must actively present evidence, through experts and defense strategies, that supports a fairer allocation of fault.

The jury was faced with three parties: a severely injured Marine veteran, an everyday motorist, and a corporate towing company. The jury’s decision to assign 65 percent of fault to the company was likely as much about perceived ability to pay as it was about traffic regulations.

To ensure a fair allocation of fault, defense counsel must go beyond broadly challenging causation. They should employ accident reconstruction to clarify sight distances, present traffic evidence to affirm the duty to yield, and, when necessary, use human factors testimony to explain typical driver behavior in similar situations. By grounding the jury’s analysis in concrete facts rather than perceptions, defendants can better prevent a peripheral corporate actor from becoming the primary target.

Keep Reading

Private Thoughts, Public Evidence: AI Chat Conversations and the Next Wave of Discovery From Classroom to Courtroom: My Personal Journey to Becoming an Attorney Setting Goals & Holding Ourselves Accountable New York State’s AVOID Act Will Drastically Change Third-Party Litigation This Spring From Zero to AI‑Augmented Litigator: My Journey from Avoidance and Fear to Delighted Learner Extraordinary Review: The Life of a Writ in California How I Use the Core Four as the Parent of Teenagers New Laws for The New Year – How To Stay on Santa’s “Good” List in 2026 A Spoonful of Error Makes the Verdict Go Down: The Importance of Contemporaneous Objections

More by this author

Let’s Not Get It On: Threshold Challenges in the Ed Sheeran Copyright Case Blind Spots and Deep Pockets: Apportionment After the $45 Million Zemo Verdict No Sweat: Strategic Defense Clears the Air in Ad Lawsuit Civil Procedure Updates to Know in New York for 2025 Staying Above Water: Mitigating Liability Under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in New Jersey Kicked Off the Team: College Football Doctor Wins Big in Wrongful Termination Case

Sources

[i]     See Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572h

[ii]     See Connecticut General Statutes § 14-247

[iii]    Don D. Zemo, IV v. Myhoopty.com LLC, ET AL. Plaintiff’s Verdict Form

[iv]    See Jury Awards $45M to Conn. Man Paralyzed In Cycle Crash, Law 360, July 24. 2025

[v]     Id.

[vi]    See Don D. Zemo, IV v. MyHoopty.com LLC, ET AL. Motion to Set Aside Verdict