Title: Mead v. Western Slate, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Mead v. Western Slate, Inc. (2002-544); 176 Vt. 274; 848 A.2d 257

2004 VT 11

[Filed 13-Feb-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 11

                                No. 2002-544

  Martin Mead Jr. and April Mead	         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Rutland Superior Court

  Western Slate, Inc. and 	                 November Term, 2003 
  Jeffrey N. Harrison

  William D. Cohen, J.

  Thomas W. Costello and Steven B. Wright of Thomas W. Costello, P.C.,
    Brattleboro, for Plaintiff-Appellee.	

  John Paul Faignant of Miller Faignant & Behrens, P.C., Rutland, for
    Defendant-Appellant Western Slate, Inc.

  John E. Brady and Brendan P. Donahue of Brady & Callahan, P.C.,
    Springfield, for  Defendant-Appellant Harrison.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.),  Specially Assigned
 
   
       ¶1  JOHNSON, J.   Defendants Western Slate, Inc. and Jeffrey N.
  Harrison appeal from the denial of their post-trial motions for judgment as
  a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial, following a jury
  verdict finding them liable for injuries to their employee, plaintiff
  Martin Mead, Jr., under the intentional-injury exception to the workers'
  compensation law.  Defendants contend the court erred in ruling that the
  exception could be satisfied by a showing that they knew to a "substantial
  certainty" their conduct would result in plaintiff's injury.  We conclude
  that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support such a
  showing, and therefore reverse.  

       ¶  2.  Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
  judgment, as we must on appeal from a denial of a motion for judgment as a
  matter of law, Brueckner v. Norwich Univ., 169 Vt. 118, 120-21,