Insurance
Home›Insurance›Liability Insurance›Vermont Supreme Court bars workers' comp details in ju…
Vermont Supreme Court bars workers' comp details in jury deliberations
In Justin Tiedemann v. Bernard and Catherine Wheeler, the jury found the courier 40% at fault and awarded $5,000 for noneconomic pain and suffering.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a trial court decision denying a new trial for an injury worker whose premises liability case ended with substantial economic damages but minimal noneconomic damages. In the dispute involving Justin Tiedemann and Bernard and Catherine Wheeler, the court upheld a jury verdict that awarded full economic damages for medical expenses and lost wages, but only $5,000 for pain and suffering.
The case stemmed from a delivery courier slipping and falling on a snow covered board while delivering a package to a residential property, resulting in a broken ankle that required two surgeries. At trial, the jury applied comparative negligence, finding the courier 40% at fault and the homeowners 60% at fault.
On appeal, Tiedemann argued the $5,000 noneconomic award for a severe injury showed juror confusion and a compromised verdict, including the possibility that jurors traded votes on liability for lower damage figures. He also contended the instructions did not sufficiently address his workers' compensation benefits, arguing the jury should have been told he would be required to repay his workers' compensation carrier from any award.
The homeowners argued the jury properly weighed conflicting medical evidence about the courier's recovery, and they said introducing workers' compensation subrogation would improperly prejudice jurors. Risk & Insurance reports the Vermont Supreme Court rejected the arguments and reinforced limits on discussing workers' compensation subrogation, citing concern that it should not influence liability determinations or damage calculations.