Case Title: Lockwood v. Lord

Citation: 163 Vt 210, 657 A.2d 555

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-12-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
LOCKWOOD_V_LORD.93-413; 163 Vt 210; 657 A.2d 555

[Filed 16-Dec-1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 26-Jan-1995]

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. 93-413


Adam D. Lockwood b/n/f Daniel D.                Supreme Court
Lockwood, Daniel D. Lockwood and
Katherine R. Lockwood
                                                On Appeal from
     v.                                         Windsor Superior Court


C. Frederick Lord, M.D.,                        September Term, 1994
C. Frederick Lord, M.D., P.C. and
Mountain Orthopedic Associates, Inc.


John P. Meaker, J.

Louis J. Cattani, Woodsville, New Hampshire, and Gavin A. Reid of Reid &
 Balivet, Newbury, for plaintiffs-appellants 

Robert Reis and Lisa Chalidze of Hull, Webber & Reis, Rutland, for
 defendants-appellees 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



     JOHNSON, J.  Plaintiffs, Adam Lockwood and his parents, appeal from a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, entered by the court for defendant Dr.
Lord, after a jury verdict for plaintiffs.  We reverse.  Pursuant to V.R.C.P.
50(c), the trial court conditionally ordered a new trial if the judgment
notwithstanding the verdict were reversed.  We conclude that the grant of a
new trial on the basis of the weight of the evidence was an abuse of the
trial court's discretion. Defendant cross-appeals, claiming that the jury
instructions were improper and that the damages 

 

were unsubstantiated and excessive.  We find that defendant's cross-appeal
regarding improper jury instructions is without merit.  Because the trial
court did not rule on defendant's motion for remittitur, we remand the issue
of damages. 

     Plaintiff, an eleven-year-old boy with cerebral palsy, broke his left
leg on December 13, 1986.  Defendant, the orthopedic surgeon on call at Mt.
Ascutney Hospital, set the fracture and applied a full-length cast to
plaintiff's leg.  Defendant conducted follow-up exams, and on January 20,
1987, replaced the full-length cast with a short leg cast.  When this cast
was removed on February 17, plaintiff was unable to walk, even with the
assistance of a walker. On March 17, defendant evaluated plaintiff's left
foot and observed a severe external rotation. Defendant recommended that
plaintiff have an operation to correct this rotational deformity.  In
September 1987, a tibial osteotomy, performed in Burlington by another
orthopedic surgeon, corrected the rotational deformity.  In August 1988,
plaintiff had a further operation to remove from his leg the hardware
required for the first operation. 

     Plaintiffs sued defendant for medical malpractice.  After a full trial
with expert testimony from both sides, the jury awarded Adam Lockwood
$230,000 and his mother Katherine Lockwood $20,000.  The trial court granted
defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.),
concluding that plaintiffs did not introduce sufficient evidence to permit a
jury to conclude that defendant had breached the standard of care proximately
causing the injury.  Believing that the verdict was against the great weight
of the evidence, the court issued a conditional order, pursuant to V.R.C.P.
50(c), granting a new trial if the j.n.o.v. were reversed.  Plaintiffs
appeal, and defendant cross-appeals. 

 

                                  I.

     When reviewing the grant of a j.n.o.v. under V.R.C.P. 50(b), we must
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
excluding the effect of any modifying evidence.  Silva v. Stevens, 156 Vt.
94, 113, 589 A.2d 852, 856 (1991).  The grant of a j.n.o.v. is improper if
there is any evidence that fairly and reasonably supports the nonmoving
party's claim.  Id., 589 A.2d at 856-57; see Kinzer v. Degler Corp., 145 Vt.
410, 412,