Reed v. Bouchard
513 A.2d 42, 147 Vt. 646, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 407
Opinion
The testimony of the plaintiff, objected to as a matter for an expert, was rationally based upon her perceptions, V.R.E. 701, and fell within the scope of common experience, see South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 Vt. 33, 46, 410 A.2d 1359, 1365 (1980). Therefore, it was properly admissible.
We find no error in the court’s ruling as to the contract formed or the damages awarded.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Reed v. Bouchard, 513 A.2d 42, 147 Vt. 646, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 407 (Vt. 1986).
513 A.2d 42 (Reed v. Bouchard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc.
410 A.2d 1359 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1980)