Case Title: Foster v. Bittersweet Experience, Inc.

Citation: 173 Vt. 617, 796 A.2d 483

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-02-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Foster v. Bittersweet Experience, Inc.  (2000-532); 173 Vt. 617; 796 A.2d 483

[Filed 25-Feb-2002]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 29-Mar-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-532

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2001

  Robert and Roberta Foster            }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.                              }	Rutland Superior Court
                                       }	
  Bittersweet Experience, Inc. and     }
  Jeff Gehris                          }	DOCKET NO. S0515-97RcC

                                                Trial Judge: Richard W. Norton

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Robert and Roberta
  Foster, defendant Bittersweet Experience, Inc. appeals the verdict and the
  Rutland Superior Court's denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding
  the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial.  Defendant raises four
  arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in its charge to the jury
  regarding the mitigation of damages, whether plaintiff Robert Foster was
  discharged, and whether such discharge was a result of his refusal to take
  a polygraph examination or some other intervening cause; (2) the special
  verdict forms were confusing and contrary to 21 V.S.A. § 494; (3) the
  verdict, with respect to money damages, was not based on sufficient
  evidence; and (4) the court erred in not granting its motion for judgment
  notwithstanding the verdict.  We affirm.  

       The following facts are those adduced at trial, taken in the light
  most favorable to the plaintiff.  See Canton v. Graniteville Fire Dist. No.
  4, 171 Vt. 551, 551,