William E. Pitts v. Howe Scale Co.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1938 |
| Citation | 1 A.2d 695,110 Vt. 27 |
| Parties | WILLIAM E. PITTS v. HOWE SCALE CO. ET AL |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
May Term, 1938.
Appeal to County Court under Workmen's Compensation Act---1. P L. 6549, Certification of Questions, and County Court Rule 7 Par. 2, Objections to Award---2. Questions Not in Interrogative Form---3. Judicial Notice---4. Return of Questions to Commissioner for Amendment---5. Right of Trial Court to Order Amendment of Indefinite Pleading---6. Certificate of Commissioner as Declaration---7. Questions Held Too Indefinite for Submission to Jury---8. Retrial De Novo of Questions Certified on Appeal to County Court from Commissioner's Award---9. No Authority to Certify Questions of Law to County Court---10. Jurisdiction of County Court Limited to Questions Certified---11. Questions Need Not Be Submitted to Jury in Language Used by Commissioner---12. Answers Taken by Special Verdicts---13. Right of Trial Court to Submit Special Interrogatories---14. Questions Certified without Authority to Be Disregarded---15. Question Certified Construed as Request for Retrial of Fact---16. Exception Not Briefed---17. Questions Certified Held to Raise Questions of Law---18. Question Submitted to Jury Held to Cover Questions of Fact Certified.
1. On appeal to county court from award of commissioner of industries under Workmen's Compensation Act, issues raised by questions certified by commissioner under P. L 6549 can be narrowed but cannot be enlarged by objections to award appealed from filed by appellant under county court rule 7, par. 2, since rule was promulgated prior to enactment of statute.
2. On such appeal, appellees' contention that no questions were certified by commissioner because matters attempted to be certified were not in interrogative form, was without merit though certifying in such form is better practice and would tend to obviate doubt as to exact issues intended to be raised.
3. It is matter of common knowledge, of which Supreme Court will take judicial notice, that a question for debate is frequently stated in form of resolution.
4. On such appeal, trial court is not required to speculate on meaning and scope of questions certified by commissioner when such questions are so vague that their meaning and scope cannot be determined with certainty, but may order certified questions returned to commissioner to be so amended that questions of fact to be retried may be made definite and certain.
5. Where a pleading is so indefinite and uncertain that precise nature of charge or defense is not apparent, trial court, in exercise of sound discretion and under an inherent power not dependent on code or statutory provision, may by order require amendment to cure this defect.
6. On appeal to county court from award of commissioner of industries under Workmen's Compensation Act certificate of commissioner as to questions for review takes place of declaration in ordinary action.
7. On such appeal, questions certified by commissioner held too indefinite and doubtful as to scope and meaning to be submitted to jury as certified without some interpretation by court.
8. On such appeal, review contemplated by P. L. 6549 providing for certification by commissioner of questions for review is retrial de novo of questions previous decision of which was unsatisfactory to one of parties, since law contains no provision for bringing before county court evidence previously adduced before commissioner.
9. P. L. 6549 does not authorize certification of questions of law but only questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law on appeal to county court from award of commissioner of industries under Workmen's Compensation Act.
10. On appeal to county court from award of commissioner of industries under Workmen's Compensation Act, jurisdiction of county court is limited by provisions of P. L. 6549 to considering questions certified by commissioner.
11. On such appeal, questions certified by commissioner need not be submitted to jury in exact language used by him, but language to be used in instructing jury, provided subject-matter is fully and correctly covered, is within control of trial court.
12. On such appeal, answers of jury to questions submitted from those certified by commissioner must be taken by special verdicts.
13. Even where there is no request therefor from either party trial court has authority of its own motion to require jury to answer special interrogatories on matters material to issues on trial, unless by statute jury is limited to general verdict.
14. On appeal to county court from award of commissioner of industries under Workmen's Compensation Act, court has authority and duty to disregard questions which are not within statutory authority of commissioner to certify, either because they are pure questions of law or for other reasons.
15. On such appeal, question certified by commissioner stated as "the finding that the original compression fracture * * * has been healed, and that his present physical disability is due to arthritis," etc., was to be interpreted as request for retrial of fact of continuance of disability rather as raising question of law as to whether finding of commissioner was supported by evidence.
16. Exception which was not briefed was not for consideration in Supreme Court.
17. On appeal to county court from award of commissioner of industries under Workmen's Compensation Act, certain of questions certified by commissioner held to raise only questions of law, which commissioner is without authority to certify to county court under P. L. 6549.
18. On such appeal, when court did not submit questions to jury in form in which they were certified by commissioner, held that there was no question of fact in questions certified which was not included in question submitted and that appellees could not have been harmed by any error of court in failing to submit any of questions certified, since they were not exposed to hazard of adverse answers to such questions and their position could not have been improved by favorable answers.
Appeal to county court from award of commissioner of industries, Howard E. Armstrong, Commissioner. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1937, Rutland County, Jeffords, J., presiding. Special verdict that claimant's total disability caused by accident had not ceased, and judgment thereon. The defendants excepted. The opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
J. Boone Wilson, Charles F. Black and Willsie E. Brisbin for the defendants.
Asa S. Bloomer for the plaintiff.
Present: MOULTON, SHERBURNE, BUTTLES and STURTEVANT, JJ.
This case originated in a claim by the plaintiff against the defendants for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law. No agreement having been reached by the parties the claim was heard on May 16, 1936, by a special deputy commissioner of industries and as a result findings were filed on June 17, 1936, to the effect that the claimant had been injured substantially as claimed by him, by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant scale company, and that he had suffered total disability as a result thereof. An award was made of medical benefits and of compensation at the rate of $ 8.01 per week during the time that such total disability might continue, commencing as of January 14, 1936. It appears that a further hearing was held by the commissioner on December 30, 1936, on the question of continuation of disability and as a result finding was made that total disability resulting from the accident had not then ended and it was ordered that payments of compensation be continued in accordance with the original award. It appears that these orders were acquiesced in by the parties without appeal, and payments were made pursuant thereto. The case was further heard by the commissioner on August 13, 1937. The commissioner's notice of this hearing was dated August 3, 1937, and contains this recital: "This case is again set for hearing at the request of the insurance company under and by virtue of P. L. 6546, only for the purpose of determining the extent of the employee's disability, if any, at the present time." On August 24, 1937, the commissioner made a finding to the effect that the disability from which the claimant was then suffering was due to causes other than the accidental injury of January 6, 1936, and ordered that compensation previously awarded end as of July 6, 1937. From this decision and findings the claimant appealed to Rutland county court and in his notice of appeal set up eight questions as the ones from which appeal was taken. These questions are identical with the questions subsequently certified by the commissioner to the court for review in accordance with the requirement of P. L. 6549 and read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luther P. Wilson v. Ralph E. Dyer
...the jury had the right to return a special verdict on its own initiative. V. S. 47, § 1730, which had its origin in the Revision of 1787 at page 28, is declaratory of the law, and that law recogonizes the right. 53 Am Jur Trial § 1064; 64 CJ Trial § 918. The procedure has not gone unrecogni......
-
Rose Weiner v. the Prudential Insurance Company of America
... ... J ... Rolf Searles, Arthur L. Graves and William S ... Burrage, Jr., for the plaintiffs ... Present: ... ...
-
Stoll v. Burlington Elec. Dept.
...to this Court. Id. § 672. ¶ 6. We have had occasion to interpret these statutory provisions in the past. In Pitts v. Howe Scale Co., 110 Vt. 27, 38, 1 A.2d 695, 699 (1938), we ruled that the superior court did not err by submitting to the jury only one out of eight questions certified to it......
-
Marshall v. State
...Co. v. Wallis,2003 VT 103, ¶ 11, 176 Vt. 167, 845 A.2d 316(“[R]eview under 21 V.S.A. § 670is de novo.” (citing Pitts v. Howe Scale Co.,110 Vt. 27, 35, 1 A.2d 695, 698 (1938))).III.¶ 14. The State's argument about subject matter jurisdiction is, in effect, a challenge to the merits of the su......