Title: Shaw v. Barnes

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Shaw v. Barnes  (95-656); 166 Vt. 610; 693 A.2d 710

[Filed 21-Mar-1997]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-656

                             JANUARY TERM, 1997

Donald and Jourdaine Shaw            }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Addison Superior Court
                                     }
Joan Barnes                          }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 242-10-94 Ancv

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs, who suffered damages when their car was struck from behind
  by a car driven by defendant, appeal from a jury verdict in defendant's
  favor and a decision by the Addison Superior Court denying their post-trial
  motions.  We affirm.

       Plaintiffs sued defendant in negligence for personal injuries, after
  defendant's automobile struck the rear of an automobile occupied by driver
  Donald Shaw and passenger Jourdaine Shaw. The parties' versions of the
  accident vary considerably, but both agree that on an August morning in
  1993, defendant was driving south on Route 7 in Vergennes, directly behind
  plaintiffs' car.  Defendant testified that as she approached the
  intersection, the cars ahead of her appeared to be moving slowly through
  the intersection and did not have their brake lights on. Defendant stated
  that as she slowed down, plaintiffs' vehicle stopped very abruptly.  She
  claimed that as soon as she saw its brake lights go on she applied her own
  brakes.  Nevertheless, defendant's car collided with the plaintiffs'
  vehicle.  Defendant added that the surface of the road, which had just been
  paved, was oily.  Defendant's statement that plaintiffs' car stopped
  suddenly was corroborated by a flag person at the site, who testified on
  defendant's behalf.

       Plaintiffs testified to the contrary that traffic was not moving
  through the intersection and that defendant caused the collision because
  she was not prepared to stop.  Plaintiffs also testified that defendant
  stated at the scene that she was driving a borrowed vehicle that was in
  poor running condition.  Plaintiffs testified that their car was heavily
  damaged and that each sustained injuries -- shoulder, neck, and back pains
  in Donald Shaw's case, and soft-tissue injury and neck pains in Jourdaine
  Shaw's case.

       The jury returned a general verdict for defendant, and plaintiffs
  moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for
  a new trial.   The motion was denied without a hearing, and this appeal
  followed.

       A trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether to hold a
  hearing on a new trial motion.  See Jewell v. Dyer, 154 Vt. 486, 488, 578 A.2d 125, 127 (1990);  Gardner v. Town of  Ludlow, 135 Vt. 87, 92,