Case Title: Callan v. Hackett

Citation: 170 Vt. 609, 749 A.2d 626

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Callan v. Hackett (98-318); 170 Vt. 609; 749 A.2d 626

[Filed 18-Feb-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-318

                             DECEMBER TERM, 1999

Louise and Dwight Callan	       }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Franklin Superior Court
	                               }	
	                               }
Marilyn Hackett	                       }	DOCKET NO. S156-97 Fc	

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

       Plaintiffs Louise and Dwight Callan appeal the trial court's denial of
  a motion for a new trial on  the issue of damages.  Plaintiff Louise Callan
  and defendant were involved in an automobile  collision on December 20,
  1994.  As a result of this collision, Louise suffered injuries and  missed
  two months of work.  The case was tried to a jury who found for plaintiffs. 
  Plaintiffs  contend that the trial court's instructions to the jury were
  erroneous with respect to the existence  of Louise's preexisting condition
  and that this error resulted in prejudice as evidenced by an  inadequate
  damage award.  We affirm.

       At trial, plaintiffs claimed that in addition to medical expenses and
  lost earnings, Louise's  injuries required them to purchase new milking
  equipment and hire additional farm labor because  she was no longer able to
  assist with farming chores.  They also sought damages for pain and 
  suffering and loss of consortium.  Evidence showed that Louise had a
  preexisting degenerative  disc disease that was asymptomatic prior to the
  accident.  There was conflicting evidence about  whether the farm expenses
  were caused by Louise's injury.  The jury awarded plaintiffs damages  in an
  amount sufficient to cover medical expenses ($3,700) and lost wages
  ($2,700), as well as  an additional $5,000.  Plaintiffs moved for an
  additur or new trial on the damages, challenging  the jury instructions on
  the aggravation of a preexisting condition.  The trial court denied the 
  motion.

       On appeal, plaintiffs contend that they needed to prove only that
  Louise had a preexisting  condition that was aggravated by defendant.  They
  claim that the burden should then shift to  defendant to prove what portion
  of the damages claimed were attributable to Louise's preexisting 
  condition.  Plaintiffs are essentially asking that we create a new rule
  that relieves plaintiffs of  proving the proximate cause of their damages
  if they have shown aggravation of a preexisting  condition.

 

       As this is an appeal challenging jury instructions, plaintiffs must
  first show that the charge as  given was wrong.  See Harris v. Carbonneau,
  165 Vt. 433, 438,