Title: Needham v. Coordinated Apparel Group, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Needham v. Coordinated Apparel Group, Inc. (99-360); 174 Vt. 263; 
811 A.2d 124

[Filed 28-Jun-2002]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 7-Oct-2002]

       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. 1999-360


Stephanie Needham, b/n/f	                 Supreme Court
Marilee and James Needham, and 
Marilee and James Needham, Individually	         On Appeal from
                                                 Addison Superior Court
       v.

Coordinated Apparel Group, Inc., et al.	 November Term, 2000


Dean B. Pineles, J.

Robert B. Hemley, Norman Williams and Rebecca C. Raskin of Gravel 
  and Shea, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert D. Rachlin and Christopher D. Roy of Downs Rachlin & Martin, 
  PLLC, Burlington, and Michael J. Goldman of Hawkins & Parnell, LLP 
  (Of Counsel), Atlanta, Georgia, for Defendants-Appellants.


PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       DOOLEY, J.   Defendants, comprised of the manufacturers, distributors
  and retailers of a cotton garment that ignited, injuring Stephanie Needham,
  appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs,
  Stephanie and her parents, on their negligence, breach of warranty and
  products liability claims.  Defendants contend the court erroneously: (1)
  denied their motion for judgment as a matter of law because the evidence
  established that the accident could not have happened as plaintiffs
  contended, and did not support their failure-to-warn products liability
  claim; (2) admitted a Congressional subcommittee hearing report; and (3)
  denied a motion for mistrial 

 

  following plaintiffs' closing argument.  We reject the first contention,
  but agree with the second, and therefore reverse and remand for a new
  trial. (FN1)  

       Construed in the light most favorable to the judgment, see Haynes v.
  Golub Corp., 166 Vt. 228, 233,