Andrus Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Haber

Supreme Court of Vermont

Andrus Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Haber

349 A.2d 241, 133 Vt. 608, 1975 Vt. LEXIS 467

DecidedDecember 2, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 349 A.2d 241 (Andrus Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Haber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrus Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Haber, 349 A.2d 241, 133 Vt. 608, 1975 Vt. LEXIS 467 (Vt. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a final judgment of the Rutland Superior Court. The claim of error arises from the court’s use of an incorrect jury verdict form. As a result of this error, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant allowing recovery against the plaintiff. Prior to discharge or separation, the court explained its error in open court in the presence of counsel. The jury was instructed, without objection, that the only correct verdict would be in the plaintiff’s favor in an amount they found to be due and owing based upon defendant’s own admission that she owed some amount to the plaintiff. The jury again deliberated, correcting the form of verdict so that when it was reported to the court it reflected a unanimous verdict for the plaintiff in form and substance.

Clearly the error resulting in the confusion of verdict form was that of the court. Both the court and the jury took proper corrective action culminating, from all that appears in the record before us, in a proper legal verdict. No prejudice having been demonstrated, the entry is “judgment affirmed”.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a final judgment of the Rutland Superior Court. The claim of error arises from the court’s use of an incorrect jury verdict form. As a result of this error, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant allowing recovery against the plaintiff. Prior to discharge or separation, the court explained its error in open court in the presence of counsel. The jury was instructed, without objection, that the only correct verdict would be in the plaintiff’s favor in an amount they found to be due and owing based upon defendant’s own admission that she owed some amount to the plaintiff. The jury again deliberated, correcting the form of verdict so that when it was reported to the court it reflected a unanimous verdict for the plaintiff in form and substance.

Clearly the error resulting in the confusion of verdict form was that of the court. Both the court and the jury took proper corrective action culminating, from all that appears in the record before us, in a proper legal verdict. No prejudice having been demonstrated, the entry is “judgment affirmed”.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 A.2d 241, 133 Vt. 608, 1975 Vt. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrus-insurance-agency-inc-v-haber-vt-1975.