Case Title: Gilman v. Towmotor Corp.

Citation: 160 Vt. 116, 621 A.2d 1260

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
GILMAN_V_TOWMOTOR_CORP.90-531; 160 Vt. 116; 621 A.2d 1260

[Opinion Filed 25-Sep-1993]

[Motion for Reargument Withdrawn 05-Mar-1993]

 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. 90-531


 Gary A. Gilman                               Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Windham Superior Court

 Towmotor Corporation                         May Term, 1992
 & Liberty Mutual Insurance Company


 Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

 Thomas W. Costello, Brattleboro, and Peter N. Munsing of Mayerson, Munsing,
   Corchin, Rosato & Ostroff, P.C., Spring City, Pennsylvania, for
   plaintiff/cross-appellant

 Robert D. Rachlin and Robert A. Miller, Jr., of Downs Rachlin & Martin,
   Burlington, for defendant-appellant Towmotor Corporation

 Robert P. Gerety, Jr., and William D. Gillis of Plante, Hanley & Gerety,
   P.C., for defendant-appellee Liberty Mutual Insurance Company



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      MORSE, J.   Plaintiff sought recovery for injuries he sustained at his
 place of employment when a forklift holding a large vat of glue tipped over.
 The jury awarded plaintiff nearly $280,000 in damages on a strict
 liability claim against defendant Towmotor Corporation, the forklift
 manufacturer.  To that amount, the court added interest at the statutory
 rate of 12% per annum plus costs, for a total judgment of approximately
 $400,000.  The jury also returned a verdict in favor of defendant Liberty
 Mutual Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier, on plaintiff's
 claim of negligent safety inspection of the workplace.
      On appeal, Towmotor claims that the trial court erred by not
 instructing the jury on proximate cause and comparative fault, and by its
 calculation of prejudgment interest.  Plaintiff also appealed, claiming he
 is entitled to a new trial against Liberty Mutual because the trial court
 abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the workers' compensation
 policy and the fact that Liberty Mutual paid him workers' compensation
 benefits, and in limiting plaintiff's cross-examination of a company
 witness.  We affirm both judgments.
                            I.  Towmotor's Appeal
                             A.  Proximate Cause
      Towmotor's first claim of error is that the trial court failed to
 instruct the jury on the element of proximate cause in the strict-products-
 liability claim.  Proximate cause, or proof that a product's defect legally
 caused the injury, is a prerequisite for recovery in a claim of strict
 liability in tort.  American Law of Products Liability 3d { 4.3 (1987); see
 also Zaleskie v. Joyce, 133 Vt. 150, 155,