A wheelchair user's bus ramp injury appeal failed after a Connecticut court ruled defense counsel's improper remarks did not deny him a fair trial. 

The Connecticut Appellate Court issued its unanimous decision on September 22, 2026, affirming a jury verdict for the Connecticut Transit District Consortium, which operates as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority. 

The plaintiff alleged that on September 24, 2020, he was exiting a bus via a wheelchair lift ramp when the ramp began retracting before he had cleared it. The upward motion, he claimed, sent his wheelchair falling backward, injuring his left hand, left shoulder, back, neck, abdominal region and both hips. The transit authority denied negligence and argued the plaintiff's own negligence caused any injuries. A two-day jury trial in November 2023 ended with a defense verdict. 

The real flashpoint came during opening statements. Defense counsel told jurors the plaintiff was born in Nigeria, was not a US citizen, had been convicted of insurance fraud involving close to $5,000,000 in life insurance proceeds, had served six years in prison and had been involved in a workers' compensation fraud. The trial judge sustained an objection and immediately instructed the jury to disregard the citizenship remarks and to treat any criminal conviction evidence only as bearing on truthfulness. The court then excluded the conviction evidence entirely. 

The trial court itself called the remarks "improper, prejudicial, and designed to enflame the jury." It denied a new trial anyway, citing its prompt curative instructions and no indication the jury had ignored them. 

The Appellate Court agreed. The improper remarks were an isolated incident during opening statements - which jurors were told repeatedly are not evidence. A curative instruction followed immediately. The plaintiff never moved for a mistrial. 

Three other claims fell away. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying counsel's motion to withdraw on the morning of trial, since the attorney-client dispute concerned evidence strategy rather than exceptional circumstances. A racial-bias challenge to peremptory jury strikes was waived because it was first raised after the verdict. A challenge to the admission of surveillance video was dismissed as inadequately briefed. 

For claims and litigation teams, the takeaway is practical: a trial court can label opposing counsel's remarks prejudicial and improper, and the verdict still stands if the curative response was prompt and the aggrieved side did not seek a mistrial when it counted.