Ball v. Barre Elec. Supply Co., Inc., 83-255
| Decision Date | 30 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-255,83-255 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 104 Lab.Cas. P 55,567 Kenneth R. BALL v. BARRE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC. |
Jess T. Schwidde of Rice & Knosher, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee.
Gilbert T. Normand, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant.
Before ALLEN, C.J., and HILL, PECK, GIBSON and HAYES, JJ.
Defendant, Barre Electric Supply Co., appeals from a judgment rendered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Kenneth R. Ball. The lawsuit involved the plaintiff's wrongful discharge from his employment with defendant. The jury awarded the plaintiff punitive damages in addition to damages for lost wages and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, the defendant challenges the award of punitive damages and damages for emotional distress, but does not challenge the jury's award of compensatory damages for breach of contract. We affirm.
During the trial, the defendant made no objection to the submission of the claims for emotional distress and punitive damages to the jury, nor did the defendant object to the court's charge to the jury on these issues. The trial court was thus denied an opportunity to correct any error it may have made concerning the permissibility of recovery on these claims. The defendant has thus failed to preserve the issues raised on appeal. See Merrill v. Reville, 135 Vt. 517, 519, 380 A.2d 96, 98 (1977) (); McCrea v. State, 138 Vt. 517, 520, 419 A.2d 318, 319 (1980) (); V.R.C.P. 51(b) ().
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hart, In re, 97-059
-
In re Diverging Diamond Interchange SW Permit
...memorandum in which it argued that November 2013 should not be the vesting date for Criterion 5. See Ball v. Barre Elec. Supply Co., 146 Vt. 245, 246, 499 A.2d 786, 787 (1985) (per curiam) (stating that issue was not preserved for appeal where no objection was made that gave trial court opp......
-
Chittenden Trust Co. v. Marshall
...no objection to the court's charge, they have failed to preserve any issue relative thereto on appeal. Ball v. Barre Electric Supply Co., 146 Vt. 245, 246, 499 A.2d 786, 787 (1985). With respect to the argument that the jury verdict must have been a mistake because the jury found that the b......
-
Repash v. Repash
...upon his part that the conference was not a Rule 16 conference, or constituted a waiver of the issue. See Ball v. Barre Electric Supply Co., 146 Vt. 245, 246, 499 A.2d 786, 787 (1985). Even assuming that the conference was a pretrial conference within the meaning of Rule 16, no prejudice ha......