DiMeo v. Philbin, 84-515-A
| Decision Date | 09 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-515-A,84-515-A |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bruce DiMEO v. Paul PHILBIN et al. ppeal. |
This matter came before the Supreme Court on an order issued to the defendant to appear and show cause why the plaintiff's appeal should not be summarily sustained. In showing cause, the defendant was directed to address the question of whether the trial justice's instructions to the jury were erroneous.
The plaintiff had challenged three separate sections of the trial justice's charge. However, we find only one issue to be dispositive and therefore need not reach the remaining two.
This case arose out of a rear-end collision between defendant's truck and plaintiff's passenger vehicle. At trial defendant admitted liability, and the only issue submitted to the jury was that of damages. It is represented that the jury's award of $20,000 was quite modest in view of the injuries suffered and the medical treatment, disability, and pain and suffering.
The trial justice during his instructions told the jury not to consider the matter of interest in arriving at a damage award. He stated rather broadly that we live in an interest-conscious society. He then went on to inform the jurors that interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum would be added to the amount of their verdict. Although he instructed the jurors that they should not add any amount of money as interest to their assessment of damages, he informed them that this accident had occurred six years earlier, thus making it crystal clear to the jury that whatever amount it awarded would be increased by 72 percent.
This court has said that "the most prudent test for determining whether or not an erroneous charge is reversible error should turn on whether it can be shown that the jury 'could have been misled' to the resultant prejudice of the complaining party." Anter v. Ambeault, 104 R.I. 496, 501, 245 A.2d 137, 139 (1968). At another time we held that the test is how a panel of ordinary and intelligent persons could construe a charge. Brimbau v. Ausdale Equipment Rental Corp., --- R.I. ---, 440 A.2d 1292 (1982).
In enacting G.L.1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-21-10, which adds prejudgment interest to money awards, we have said that the Legislature's primary intention was not to add interest but to establish a device to encourage settlements of cases sounding in tort without undue delay. Isserlis v. Director of Public Works, 111 R.I. 164, 300 A.2d 273 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grove By and Through Grove v. Myers
...230, 235 (1959); Pray v. Narragansett Improvement Co., 434 A.2d 923, 930-31 (R.I.1981). In fact, as stated by the court in DiMeo v. Philbin, 502 A.2d 825 (R.I.1986), it is reversible error for a trial court to advise the jury in such a manner that the jury is able to compute the amount of p......
-
Carrozza v. Voccola
...the just-referenced heading, relates to the total amount that in the end will be payable to the counterclaimants. See DiMeo v. Philbin, 502 A.2d 825, 826 (R.I.1986). 23. The counterclaim defendants initially contend that the counterclaimants have conceded that the prejudgment interest award......
-
Delaney v. C.I.R.
...Brabson, statutory prejudgment interest is not an element of damages in a personal injury action under Rhode Island law. DiMeo v. Philbin, 502 A.2d 825, 826 (R.I.1986) (prejudgment interest in personal injury action purely statutory and therefore not an element of damages); Castrignano v. E......
-
Cady v. IMC Mortgage Co., Inc.
...interest is not an element of damages, [and] it is purely statutory and is peremptorily added to the jury verdict by the clerk of the court." Id. in fact a jury does include or contemplate prejudgment interest when determining damages as a result of an erroneous charge or calculations, "rev......