Court Opinion

ID: 9752186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:42:49.75286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:09.124010
License: Public Domain

*101S'hangraw, J.
dissenting. The question concerning payment of damages by the State of Vermont was improper. The sole purpose was to prejudice the jury and minimize the amount of recovery. The circumstance leaves counsel open to the implication of bad faith. By allowing the answer to stand, the trial court impliedly ruled that the answer was proper, and for consideration by the jury. To say the least, the effect of this evidence on the jury is highly speculative.
The purpose of the second question relating to payment by the United States Government, if answered, might well have had the effect of enhancing the amount of recovery. In such event two trouble spots would have been present.
Neither question on this collateral issue had any place in the case. Two wrongs do not make a right. The defendant opened the door — not the plaintiff. It is my view that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of this error. There should be a reversal and a new trial in order that the speculative aspects present in this case may be avoided.