Title: Peterson v. Chichester

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

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. 89-499


Patricia Peterson                            Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             Windsor Superior Court
Lee R. Chichester
                                             September Term, 1991


Ellen H. Maloney, J.

Mark W. Roberts of Barron & Stadfeld, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts, for
   plaintiff-appellant

Sheila C. Files of Douglas Richards, P.C., Springfield, for defendant-
   appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     MORSE, J.   In this personal injury case, plaintiff asks that we
reverse and remand for a new trial on the grounds that the jury verdict was
compromised and that a post-judgment interview with the foreperson of the
jury was improper.  Plaintiff also seeks a reversal of the order denying her
costs.  We affirm.
                                    I.
     Plaintiff was injured when defendant collided with her on a ski trail
at a commercial ski resort.  At trial, the jury concluded defendant was 51%
negligent and plaintiff 49% negligent.  Finding that plaintiff suffered
total damages of $18,388, the jury awarded her $9,377 based on comparative
negligence.
     When she gave the verdict form to the court clerk, the jury foreperson
told the clerk that she was not sure the jury understood.  The court
related this to counsel at the bench, saying:
          [W]hen the foreperson gave Jane the envelope, she said
          I'm not sure we understood.  She had the charge in her
          hand.  They have filled this out . . . they have come up
          with a Defendant's verdict, but they've . . . awarded
          damages. . . . I don't want to let them go if anything's
          wrong. . . .

After some discussion, the court stated "I'm going to say [to the fore-
person] what did you intend to do, and we'll start with that."  Plaintiff's
counsel then said, "Actually I think what they did is consistent because
it's not a Defendant's verdict. . . .  I mean, the Defendant was fifty-one
percent negligent, and the Plaintiff is forty-nine percent negligent, so
it's not a Defendant's verdict."  After more discussion to determine if the
calculations were correct, the court thanked and discharged the jury.
     Following entry of judgment for plaintiff, she moved, under V.R.C.P.
59, for an order increasing the verdict ("additur"), or in the alternative,
a new trial.  She subsequently requested a new trial on the ground that the
jury verdict was compromised.  Plaintiff also requested that the presiding
judge recuse herself from deciding the motion.  The judge declined to
recuse herself, denied the Rule 59 motion and plaintiff's motion for costs.
     While the Rule 59 motion was pending, plaintiff's counsel telephoned
and interviewed the jury foreperson.  Defendant's counsel, learning that
plaintiff's counsel intended to contact the foreperson, filed an objection
with the trial court.  By order, the court granted plaintiff's request to
interview the foreperson and scheduled it at the courthouse with counsel and
the court present.  At the interview, the foreperson expressed nothing
unusual to indicate that the jury acted improperly or misunderstood the
proceedings in any respect.
                                    II.
      Focusing on the minimal amount found as damages, plaintiff claims the
verdict was compromised and the judgment should be reversed.  Plaintiff
incurred "special damages" of $5,160 in medical expenses and $10,350 in lost
wages.  Given the finding of $18,388 total damages, the amount attributable
to pain and suffering and permanent injury was less than $3,000.  Plaintiff
had broken her arm, received several cuts on her face requiring stitches,
received bruises on her body, and strained her neck and jaw.  Plaintiff's
doctor testified that she would permanently suffer a 20% disability to her
right shoulder, problems with her back, neck and jaw, and periodic
headaches.  Plaintiff was bedridden two months and out of work five.
     Plaintiff relies primarily on Kerr v. Rollins, 128 Vt. 507, 513,