Isabelle v. Proctor Hospital
| Decision Date | 05 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-72,64-72 |
| Citation | 131 Vt. 1,298 A.2d 818 |
| Parties | Gene ISABELLE and Trustee v. PROCTOR HOSPITAL et al. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Bloomer & Bloomer, Rutland, for plaintiff.
Black & Plante, White River Junction, for Proctor Hospital.
Richard E. Davis, Barre, for William O'Rourke.
Before SHANGRAW, C. J., and BARNEY, SMITH, KEYSER and DALEY, JJ.
In a prior proceeding in this case, reported in 129 Vt. 500, 282 A.2d 837, the conduct of a juror was challenged as improper, sufficiently so to invalidate the verdict. By order of this Court the matter was remanded for investigation of the allegations of misconduct, in order to rule on the associated motion for a new trial.
The original action was a malpractice case involving several defendants. The trial lasted six weeks and resulted in a verdict exonerating the defendants. In the midst of the trial the plaintiffs requested that a particular juror be discharged and one of the alternates substituted. This request was supported by an affidavit of a third party asserting improper conversations and expressions of opinion by the juror outside of court to persons not on the panel during the trial. The defendants acquiesced in the request, but the trial court denied the motion and refused to investigate the charges. At the close of the case further affidavits were filed in connection with a motion for a new trial, with no better result.
In the opinion in 129 Vt. 500, 504, 282 A.2d 837, this Court found this refusal of the trial court to examine into the charges to be error. The remand for investigation followed. The trial court held three hearings. The first was an exploratory pretrial conference, the second a taking of testimony from the juror involved and the two affiants, and the last, according to the trial court, reserved for further evidence. However, after some maneuvering, and some uncooperative conduct on the part of counsel, the trial court declared the matter closed at the third hearing without further evidence, and limited his consideration to the evidence presented at the second hearing.
The plaintiffs, who were the burdened party with respect to establishing their right to a new trial, objected at the time to this manner of proceeding. It was their claim that they had further evidence they wished to present. They had consistently so claimed from the outset, and had their position recognized by the trial court, but had not, up to this point, brought any such evidence forward.
The court could properly insist that parties produce their evidence within reasonable time limits, but the binding order to produce must be accompanied by notice of the limitation and reasonable opportunity to comply. These proceedings were terminated without warning, in the face of objections by the plaintiffs who had the burden of proof, and in the presence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McKeen
...(1989) (defendant claiming taint of extraneous influences required only to show capacity to affect result); Isabelle v. Proctor Hospital, 131 Vt. 1, 3, 298 A.2d 818, 819 (1972) (one claiming juror misconduct not required to prove actual prejudice, only circumstances having that The trial co......
-
Farnum v. Brattleboro Retreat, Inc.
...they were not influenced by the remark. The Retreat moved for a mistrial, and the court denied the motion. In Isabelle v. Proctor Hospital, 131 Vt. 1, 3, 298 A.2d 818, 819 (1972), this Court held that a new trial may be justified "when a juror goes so far as to express an opinion about the ......
-
Isabelle v. Proctor Hospital
...On remand, the trial court terminated the evidence prematurely and foreclosed the plaintiffs' proof. A second remand followed. 131 Vt. 1, 298 A.2d 818 (1972). Upon this second remand, the same court, in disregard of the mandate to rehear the matter, made only supplemental findings. A third ......
-
Cleverly v. Cleverly, 87-144
...the trial court conducted its proceedings, and the order and findings were struck down and the case remanded. Isabelle, 131 Vt. 1, 3, 298 A.2d 818, 819 (1972) (Isabelle II ). On remand, after a hearing at which new testimony was heard and additional exhibits admitted, the trial court supple......