Case Title: Derosia v. Verboom

Citation: 169 Vt. 593, 736 A.2d 775

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Derosia v. Verboom (98-358); 169 Vt. 593; 736 A.2d 775

[Filed 25-Jun-1999]
                 
                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-358

                               JUNE TERM, 1999

Vicky Derosia           	       }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.                                }	Windham Superior Court
	                               }	
	                               }
Patricia Verboom                       }	

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

       Defendant Patricia Verboom appeals from a jury verdict of $190,723.52
  compensating plaintiff Vicky Derosia for personal injuries arising from a
  1995 automobile accident. Defendant raises three claims of error on appeal:
  (1) the trial judge erroneously denied defendant's request to instruct the
  jury regarding the lack of tax liability on any monetary damages awarded,
  (2) the court officer contaminated the jury by telling a juror that the
  jurors could not leave until they reached a unanimous verdict, and (3) the
  verdict was so excessive it indicates improper jury passion or prejudice,
  and the court therefore erred by not granting either a new trial or
  remittitur. We affirm.

       At the May 1998 trial, plaintiff's expert witness specializing in
  rehabilitative medicine testified that plaintiff suffered a seventeen
  percent whole-person, permanent impairment as a result of the accident.
  Plaintiff's neurosurgeon also testified, stating that the nerve blocks and
  nerve-root decompression surgery he performed on her were necessary and
  related to the accident. In response to plaintiff's evidence on lost wages,
  defendant entered into evidence plaintiff's tax returns for 1994, 1995, and
  1997, omitting 1996 because she had no earned income. Plaintiff made no
  claim for loss of future income. Neither party presented expert or other
  evidence raising taxation issues. Defendant submitted proposed jury
  instructions requesting that the court advise the jury it should not
  include a sum to compensate for taxation because any damages awarded would
  not be subject to federal or state income tax. When the court did not
  include the instruction, defendant objected. By special verdict, the jury
  awarded plaintiff monetary damages in the categories of: past pain,
  suffering and disability; medical bills and expenses; past lost wages; and,
  future, pain, suffering and disability. The jury awarded the precise amount
  plaintiff requested for medical bills and past wages, but it awarded
  $39,000.00 less than plaintiff had requested for past and future pain and
  suffering.

       Defendant moved for a new trial on all three grounds raised in this
  appeal or for remittitur because of an excessive verdict. With respect to
  the jury contamination grounds for new trial, defendant submitted an
  affidavit from defendant's attorney relating an alleged conversation
  between the attorney and the court officer after the conclusion of the
  trial. According to the affidavit, the following exchange occurred. A juror
  turned to the court officer and asked him how long the jury had to remain.
  The court officer replied that the jury had to remain until it had reached
  a unanimous verdict. The juror then asked whether they could go home. The
  court officer responded that the judge would not allow the jury to go home
  until it had reached a verdict. The trial judge denied the motion without
  hearing, and defendant appealed.

                                     I.

       We first address defendant's argument against the court's decision not
  to include an instruction to the jury on tax liability. Defendant contends
  that Stowell v. Simpson, 143 Vt. 625,