Case Title: Westcom v. Meunier

Citation: 164 Vt 536, 674 A.2d 1267

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
WESTCOM_V_MEUNIER.93-559; 164 Vt 536; 674 A.2d 1267

[Filed 12-Jan-1996]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 93-559


Harold Westcom              Supreme Court

    v.                                          On Appeal from
                                                Franklin Superior Court
Robert E. Meunier and
Lisa M. (McMillan) Meunier                      February Term, 1995


Linda Levitt, J.

       William T. Counos, II, of Kissane, Yarnell & Cronin, St. Albans, for
  plaintiff-appellant

       Robert B. Luce and Kevin P. Moriarty of Downs Rachlin & Martin,
  Burlington, for defendants-appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff Harold Westcom appeals a jury verdict in favor
  of defendants Robert and Lisa Meunier in a negligence action in Franklin
  Superior Court.  The jury found the Meuniers not liable for injuries
  plaintiff received when the Meuniers' vehicle struck his car from behind. 
  On appeal, plaintiff claims the trial court erred in denying him his sixth
  peremptory challenge and in instructing the jury on the sudden emergency
  doctrine.  Because we agree that the court should have allowed plaintiff to
  exercise a sixth peremptory challenge, we reverse.

       Plaintiff sued defendants for negligent driving, alleging that Robert
  Meunier had failed to stop his vehicle during a heavy snowfall and had
  struck plaintiff's vehicle from behind, causing permanent physical injuries
  to plaintiff.  Defendants asserted that the circumstances of the collision
  demonstrated a sudden emergency that relieved them of liability for
  plaintiff's injuries.  Plaintiff's claims were tried before a jury in
  Franklin Superior Court.

       During juror voir dire, the parties exercised their peremptory
  challenges in alternating order, with plaintiff's counsel challenging
  first, then defendant's counsel, then plaintiff's

  

  counsel, and so on.  The parties proceeded in this manner until each side
  had exhausted five peremptory challenges.  On his next turn, plaintiff's
  counsel attempted to pass, which prompted the following exchange with the
  court:

          MR. COUNOS:  If we pass, your Honor.

          THE COURT:   That's lost.

          MR. COUNOS:  It's lost.

          THE COURT:   Yes.  Then I would have just said one two three
                       four five six is all gone.  None left.

          MR. COUNOS:  Okay.  Pass.


   (Emphasis added.)

       Defendant's counsel then exercised his sixth peremptory challenge and
  the court replaced the challenged panel member.  With the new member now on
  the panel, plaintiff's counsel attempted to exercise his sixth peremptory
  challenge.  The record shows the following exchange:

          MR. COUNOS:  Your Honor, for the record I made five challenges
                       and would like to exercise my sixth challenge.

          THE COURT:   Okay.  But as of course I said once passed forever
                       lost.  As I understand it you're just making a
                       record.

          MR. COUNOS:  Right.


       With the jury panel thus constituted, the court administered the jury
  oath and the trial proceeded to a defense verdict.

       Vermont recognizes the right to exercise peremptory challenges both by
  statute and by rule.  12 V.S.A. § 1941; V.R.C.P. 47(c).  Long ago, this
  Court noted that the opportunity "to assert and exercise the right of
  challenge given [a party] by the statute, is, no doubt, essential to the
  full enjoyment of [that party's] right to a jury trial."  State v. Mercier,
  98 Vt. 368, 371, 127 A. 715, 716 (1925).  For over a century, we have
  consistently held that "the right to peremptorily challenge jurors given by
  [statute] continues until the jurors are sworn."  State v. Spaulding, 60
  Vt. 228, 233, 14 A. 769, 771 (1887).  More recently, we stated that "[i]f
  another

 

  party changes the composition of that panel by challenge, the first party
  of course has a new opportunity to challenge, if he wishes."  Masterson v.
  State, 139 Vt. 106, 107, 423 A.2d 845,