Shaffer v. Northeast Kingdom Human Services, Inc., 2025 VT 31 [6/20/2025]
REIBER, C.J.
In this wrongful-death action, plaintiff the Estate of Jared Shaffer,
through Daniel Shaffer as administrator, appeals from a jury verdict and
judgment in favor of defendant Northeast Kingdom Human Services, Inc. The estate argues the court erred by
instructing the jury on comparative negligence, by providing jury instructions
that it claims were misleading, and by sustaining defendant’s objections to
certain questions the estate attempted to ask defendant’s corporate
representative at trial. The estate
further argues the jury verdict must be reversed because the jury deliberated
too quickly and because the evidence overwhelmingly supported the estate’s
claim that defendant acted negligently in performing its duty to oversee and
monitor developmental disabilities services and care for decedent. We find error in the proceedings but no
prejudice to the estate and therefore affirm.
A. Comparative
Negligence . On appeal, the estate first claims that the trial court erred by
denying its pretrial motion to strike the affirmative defense of comparative
negligence. We agree the trial court
committed error in its analysis by conflating the identity of the “plaintiff,”
the administrator of the estate, with decedent’s co-guardian and father, Daniel
Shaffer. However, the court acted within
its discretion to consider the motion, determine that the defense of
comparative negligence should remain because of disputed questions of law and fact, and charge the defense to the
jury at the conclusion of evidence. The
court’s error was rectified by correction in the jury charge and jury
instructions and, ultimately, the estate was not prejudiced because the jury
never reached the affirmative defense because it concluded there was no
negligence on defendant’s part. The
estate also claims that the court should not have instructed the jury on
comparative negligence, failed to preserve this objection to the jury
instructions by not raising it below.
B. Evidentiary
Rulings. Next, the estate argues the trial court erred in preventing its
attorney from questioning defendant’s corporate representative about the master
grant agreement between defendant and the state, The court ruled, that the
witness did not have an understanding of the document and therefore could not
offer testimony about the document. On appeal, the estate argues that the
witness should have known about the master grant agreement, because he was the
designated corporate representative and a 2019 deposition notice to him
indicated that the estate would question him about the agreements. The Vermont Rules of Evidence provide “the
testimony of a witness may be excluded . . . unless evidence is introduced
sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the
matter.” V.R.E. 602. Where, as here, the witness testified that he
had no knowledge of the agreements, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in prohibiting further questioning about the agreements.
The estate next argues the court erred in preventing
it from questioning the corporate representative about a report from a
third-party audit of defendant’s operations. After defendant objected , the court allowed the estate to ask
additional questions after which the estate
turned to a completely different line of questioning. At no point did counsel for the estate
attempt to move the audit report into evidence, and the court never made a
definitive ruling excluding the testimony or the report. “Where counsel abandons a question or line of
questioning before the court has ruled that he must do so, there is no basis
for a claim of error.” State v. Kasper,
137 Vt. 184, 206, 404 A.2d 85, 97 (1979)
C. Jury Verdict. Finally, the estate argues the jury failed to understand the court’s instructions and the speed at which the jury returned its verdict was reversible error. There is no requirement that a jury deliberate any longer than may be necessary to agree upon a verdict. From the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant did not owe decedent a duty to provide or oversee his medical care. Therefore, the jury’s verdict must stand.