Debenedetto v. Cld Consulting Engineers
| Decision Date | 27 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005-262.,2005-262. |
| Citation | 903 A.2d 969 |
| Parties | Janet DeBENEDETTO, Administratrix of the Estate of David DeBenedetto v. CLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Turgeon & Associates, of Amesbury, MA (Roger D. Turgeon, on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., of Manchester (Andrew D. Dunn and Donald L. Smith, on the brief, and Mr. Dunn orally), for the defendant.
Abramson, Brown & Dugan, of Manchester (Kenneth C. Brown and Jared R. Green, on the brief) and Borofsky, Amodeo-Vickery & Bandazian, P.A., of Manchester (Stephen E. Borofsky and Erica Bodwell, on the brief) for New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association, as amicus curiae.
The plaintiff, Janet DeBenedetto, appeals an order of the Superior Court (McHugh, J.) permitting the jury in a wrongful death case to apportion fault among various entities, including defendant CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc. (CLD). The defendant cross-appeals. We affirm.
The record supports the following facts. On May 31, 1999, the plaintiff's husband, David DeBenedetto, was killed in a two-car automobile collision on Route 28 in Derry. The other driver, Doris Christous, was waiting at a red light to cross Route 28 from a Wal-Mart store. After approximately five minutes passed, Christous apparently concluded that the traffic light was broken and attempted to cross Route 28 while the light was still red. Christous' vehicle struck the rear quarter of the vehicle operated by DeBenedetto, who was passing through the intersection on a green light. The collision caused DeBenedetto's vehicle to roll over, resulting in his death.
Christous had a motor vehicle liability insurance policy, and her insurance carrier paid the $100,000 limit upon demand. Christous was not named as a defendant in the subsequent litigation.
In June 2003, the plaintiff brought a wrongful death action against seven entities: CLD; East Coast Signals, Inc. (ECS); MHF Design Consultants, Inc. (MHF); Yvon Cormier Construction Corp. (Cormier); RayCor Development, Inc. (RayCor); Leo Roy (Roy); and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). The suit alleged that each named defendant was involved in the design, selection, installation, or authorization of the traffic control system.
Prior to trial, the plaintiff settled her claims against ECS, MHF, Cormier, Ray-Cor, and Roy, and the trial court granted NHDOT's motion to dismiss on grounds of immunity. Thus, CLD was the sole defendant remaining at the time of the trial.
At trial, the plaintiff claimed that when the exit from Wal-Mart was redesigned in 1999 to accommodate through traffic to the newly opened plaza of shops across the street, a new "loop detector" should have been installed to detect cars in the center lane. A "loop detector" is a piece of equipment installed under the asphalt at an intersection that detects approaching vehicles and signals the computer regulating the traffic control system, producing a green light during the next traffic cycle. The plaintiff alleged that because there was no loop detector to detect cars in the center lane of the Wal-Mart exit, and because CLD knew or should have known that motorists would use the center lane, it was foreseeable that one or more drivers would become stuck at an interminable red light and elect to proceed against it, thereby exposing all motorists lawfully passing through the intersection to an unreasonable risk of injury.
Before trial, CLD requested a jury instruction that included the following language regarding apportionment of fault:
There are a number of parties in this case, including those that are absent from this trial. It is your duty to determine the proportionate fault of each party. That is, you should decide what percentage of fault lies with each of the alleged tortfeasors, whether they are here or not. You may consider evidence that another party may be responsible for the accident, or any part thereof. In doing so, you may attribute liability to an absent party.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court did not give the instruction as requested. Instead, the trial court instructed the jury to determine the percentage of fault, if any, of only the remaining named defendant, CLD, as well as Christous, ECS, and NHDOT. The instruction omitted MHF, Cormier, RayCor and Roy. The jury returned a verdict awarding $5.3 million in damages and apportioned forty-nine percent of fault to CLD, forty-nine percent of fault to Christous, and two percent of fault to NHDOT. Approximately $3 million of the damages awarded were attributable to "non-economic" damages. The jury did not find ECS negligent to any degree.
CLD submitted a post-trial motion for remittitur, requesting that the damage award be reduced to $2.5 million, and that its apportionment of fault be reduced to twenty percent. CLD also submitted motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied the latter motions, but partially granted the motion for remittitur, leaving apportionment of fault at forty-nine percent but reducing the damages award to $3.8 million.
The plaintiff also sought post-trial relief, submitting a motion to reform the verdict requesting that 100% of fault be apportioned to CLD. The trial court denied this motion.
On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that: (1) the trial court erred by instructing the jury to consider Christous and NHDOT when assigning fault percentages; (2) the trial court's interpretation of RSA 507:7-e (1997), which governs apportionment of damages, was unconstitutional; and (3) the trial court erred in granting remittitur. CLD cross-appeals, claiming that: (1) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it could apportion fault to Ray-Cor and Cormier; (2) the jury verdict apportioning no fault to ECS and two percent fault to NHDOT was against the weight of the evidence; and (3) the trial court erred in denying CLD's motion for directed verdict. We address each issue in turn.
The plaintiff first contends that, in light of the plain language of RSA 507:7-e, I(a), the trial court erred when it instructed the jury to consider apportioning fault to "non-parties" Christous and NHDOT. RSA 507:7-e provides, in relevant part:
I. In all actions, the court shall:
(a) Instruct the jury to determine, or if there is no jury shall find, the amount of damages to be awarded to each claimant and against each defendant in accordance with the proportionate fault of each of the parties; and
(b) Enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of the rules of joint and several liability, except that if any party shall be less than 50 percent at fault, then that party's liability shall be several and not joint and he shall be liable only for the damages attributable to him.
This court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole. DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 103, 871 A.2d 72 (2005). When a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent, and we will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include. Carlisle v. Frisbie Mem. Hosp., 152 N.H. 762, 773, 888 A.2d 405 (2005). If a statute is ambiguous, however, we may consider legislative history to aid in our analysis. Id. We interpret statutes in the context of the overall statutory scheme and not in isolation. DeLucca, 152 N.H. at 103, 871 A.2d 72. We review a trial court's interpretation of a statute de novo. Petition of State of N.H. (State v. Fischer), 152 N.H. 205, 211, 876 A.2d 232 (2005).
The plaintiff argues that the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the word "party" or "parties," in the context of RSA 507:7-e, I, is "claimant" and "defendant." The defendant, however, argues that we must construe "party" to include all parties who causally contribute to an accident, "including immune parties and parties who settle prior to suit," in order to effectuate the purpose of RSA 507:7-e. Reading RSA 507:7-e, I(a) in isolation, the phrase "amount of damages to be awarded to each claimant and against each defendant in accordance with the proportionate fault of each of the parties" could be read to favor the plaintiff's interpretation. However, reading RSA 507:7-e as a whole, the word is employed in an arguably broader sense. See, e.g., RSA 507:7-e, I(b)—(c), II; see also Estate of Hunter v. General Motors Corp., 729 So.2d 1264, 1273 (Miss.1999) (). Because we find that the use of the word "party" throughout RSA 507:7-e creates an ambiguity, we look to the legislative history of the statute to aid in our analysis.
RSA 507:7-e was enacted as part of a comprehensive statutory framework for apportionment of liability and contribution. Nilsson v. Bierman, 150 N.H. 393, 395, 839 A.2d 25 (2003) (framework includes RSA 507:7-d (1997) through RSA 507:7-i (1997)). The Laws 1986, 227:2, closely modeled the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, 12 U.L.A. 38-49 (Supp.1987), in its treatment of comparative fault and apportionment of damages. Jaswell Drill Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 129 N.H. 341, 343-44, 529 A.2d 875 (1987). Indeed, when the legislature enacted this framework, "it clearly intended these provisions to function as a unified and comprehensive approach to comparative fault, apportionment of damages, and contribution." Id. at 344-45, 529 A.2d 875.
As originally enacted in 1986, RSA 507:7-e required that judgment be entered against "each pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spade
...statute is reasonably susceptible to interpretations that favor both the defendant and the State, see DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Eng'rs, 153 N.H. 793, 797–98, 903 A.2d 969 (2006), we would conclude that the legislative history supports a broader proscription. This history demonstrates th......