Case Title: Jewell v. Dyer

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-138


Joyce Jewell and Ralph Jewell                Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             Addison Superior Court
William Jennings Dyer
and Pike Industries, Inc.                    May Term, 1990


Hilton H. Dier, Jr., J.

Timothy L.Taylor, Katherine P. Mosenthal and William H. Meub of Kelley,
   Meub, Powers & English, Ltd., Rutland, for plaintiffs-appellants

John D. Monahan, Jr. of Dinse, Erdmann & Clapp, Burlington, for defendants-
   appellees


PRESENT:   Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.



     PECK, J.  Plaintiffs appeal from a jury verdict for defendants in an
action for personal injury and loss of consortium.  We affirm.
     Joyce Jewell, the plaintiff, was involved in an motor vehicle accident
with defendant William Jennings Dyer, who was driving a truck owned by
defendant Pike Industries.  Joyce Jewell sued for personal injuries
sustained in the accident; her husband, Ralph Jewell, brought a derivative
claim for loss of consortium.  At trial, there was conflicting testimony
about the circumstances of, and liability for, the accident.  Defendant
testified that he lost control of his truck as he was negotiating a downhill
curve, crossed the center line, and came to a stop off the traveled portion
of the road.  He stated that approximately thirty seconds after he stopped,
he saw plaintiff's pickup truck coming down the road.  According to
defendant, plaintiff lost control of her truck as she approached his
vehicle; the pickup left the road and struck defendant's truck near the
outside edge of the shoulder of the road.
     Plaintiff's account was very different.  She testified that both
vehicles were moving when the accident happened, and that defendant's truck
struck her pickup while she was taking evasive action to avoid a collision.
The jury found plaintiff seventy percent responsible for the accident,
assigning the remaining thirty percent of fault to defendant.  Application
of Vermont's comparative negligence statute, 12 V.S.A. { 1036, precluded any
recovery by plaintiffs.  After the trial court denied plaintiffs' V.R.C.P.
59 motion for a new trial, this appeal ensued.
     Plaintiffs maintain that the trial court erred in denying their motion
for a new trial without a hearing.  They argue that the jury's verdict was
illogical and against the weight of the evidence at trial, and that under
the circumstances, denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion war-
ranting reversal.  Finally, they contend that the trial court's failure to
instruct on unanimity in the jury verdict was improper, and that the
verdict cannot be upheld on appeal.
     Plaintiffs assert that the trial court was required to hold a hearing
on the motion for a new trial.  We disagree.  A hearing on a V.R.C.P. 59
motion, while generally favored as the better practice, is not mandatory,
particularly where, as here, the moving party has failed to show prejudice
flowing from the lack of a hearing.  Gardner v. Town of Ludlow, 135 Vt. 87,
92,