Title: Brueckner v. Norwich University

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Brueckner v. Norwich University  (97-396); 169 Vt. 118; 730 A.2d 1086

[Opinion Filed 5-Feb-1999]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 10-Mar-1999]

       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. 97-396
	

William C. Brueckner, Jr.	               Supreme Court
 
                                               On Appeal from
     v.		                               Washington Superior Court

Norwich University	                       March Term, 1998

Alan W. Cheever, J.

       Richard T. Cassidy, Richard H. Thomas and Karen Stackpole of Hoff
  Curtis Pacht Cassidy & Frame, P.C., Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Allan R. Keyes and John A. Serafino of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd.,
  Rutland, and Arthur Makadon, Walter M. Einhorn, Jr., and Courtney L. Yeakel
  of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       AMESTOY, C.J.  Norwich University appeals from the denial of its
  post-trial motions for  judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative,
  for a new trial, following a jury verdict finding it  liable and awarding
  compensatory and punitive damages on several tort claims arising from
  incidents  of hazing suffered by plaintiff while a freshman.  Norwich
  University raises numerous issues with  respect to its liability, the award
  of lost earnings damages, and the award of punitive damages.  We  affirm
  the court's rulings on liability and lost earnings damages, but reverse the
  award of punitive  damages because there was an insufficient showing of
  malice to support the award. 

       Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as
  we must on the appeal  of both a motion for judgment as a matter of law,
  see Silva v. Stevens, 156 Vt. 94, 101-102, 589 A.2d 852, 856 (1991), and a
  motion for a new trial, see Lent v. Huntoon, 143 Vt. 539, 522,