Title: Debus v. Grand Union Stores

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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any
 errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to
 press.



                                 No. 92-063



 Susanne Debus                                Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Bennington Superior Court

 Grand Union Stores of Vermont                September Term, 1992



 Silvio T. Valente, J.


 Peter M. Lawrence of Barr, Sternberg & Moss, P.C., Bennington, for
    plaintiff-appellee

 Stephen J. Soule of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington, for defendant-
    appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.    Defendant Grand Union appeals from a jury verdict and
 award of personal injury damages made to plaintiff on her premises-liability
 claim.  Defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing plaintiff to
 make a per diem damage argument to the jury, and claims that such arguments
 are overly prejudicial and should not be allowed.  We disagree, and affirm.
 Defendant also appeals on five other grounds, which shall be taken in turn,
 each affirmed.
      Plaintiff was injured while shopping at defendant's store on August 23,
 1985, when a pallet of boxes, piled high and imbalanced, toppled over and
 fell upon her.  The boxes, containing cans of pet food, tumbled off the
 pallet and onto plaintiff when a store clerk, engaged in routine shelf-
 restocking, attempted to move the overloaded pallet.  Plaintiff suffered
 injuries resulting in a 20% permanent disability.  The jury awarded
 plaintiff damages of $346,276.23.
                                      I.
      During closing argument, plaintiff suggested that the jury think about
 plaintiff's injury in terms of daily pain and suffering, and then determine
 what amount of damages would be appropriate compensation for each day of
 suffering.  An average daily figure was suggested to the jury, which it
 could then multiply by the number of days plaintiff would live, counting
 from the day of the accident until the end of her life expectancy, some
 thirty-five years.  The jury was told to consider the figure only if it
 found the calculations useful in quantifying plaintiff's damages.
 Defendant contends that such per diem arguments are unduly prejudicial and
 should have been disallowed by the trial court.  Defendant further contends
 that if per diem arguments are permissible, the court should give cautionary
 instructions.
      A per diem argument is a tool of persuasion used by counsel to suggest
 to the jury how it can quantify damages based on the evidence of pain and
 suffering presented. See Worsley v. Corcelli,