other than a difference of opinion regarding the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, the trial court should let the jury work [its] will.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wichers v. Hatch, 252 Conn. 174, 189, 745 A.2d 789 (2000). “When determining whether to order an additur, the court should not assume that the jury made a mistake, but should suppose that the jury did exactly what it intended to do.” Weiss v. Bergen, 63 Conn. App. 810, 814, 779 A.2d 195, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 908, 782 A.2d 1254 (2001). Here, it was reasonable for the jury to believe, on the basis of the evidence presented, that an award of $450 in economic damages and zero noneconomic damages was sufficient compensation for the plaintiff. See Wichers v. Hatch, supra, 252 Conn. 188-89 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the personal injury claims were
holding that jury not required to award noneconomic damages merely because it has awarded economic damages holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that when a jury finds section 1988 liability but fails to award damages nominal damages are available to plaintiff holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative holding the damages award of zero dollars was clearly inadequate in light of the substantial evidence at trial of economic and noneconomic damages resulting from husbands wrongful death