## Facts

- Jean Smedberg, a Central Vermont Public Service employee, slipped and fell in a workplace hallway in Rutland, Vermont, and suffered a cervical spine injury that ultimately required spinal fusion surgery.
- She sued Detlef’s Custodial Services, Inc. (the facility’s custodial contractor), alleging negligence in failing to warn of or remedy a slippery floor condition; the contractor denied negligence and causation.
- Smedberg separately pursued and settled a workers’ compensation claim with her employer.
- A jury found the contractor negligent and found Smedberg 50% comparatively at fault.
- The jury awarded $27,015.25 in medical expenses and $45,500 in lost wages, but awarded $0 for past or future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
- The trial court reduced the economic awards by 50% and entered judgment for $36,257.63 plus interest and costs.
- The trial court denied Smedberg’s post-verdict motion for a new trial on damages or additur under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 59, and awarded prejudgment interest on the economic damages as a “sum certain.”

## Issues

1. Whether a verdict awarding full medical expenses and substantial lost wages for a serious injury and surgery, but $0 for pain and suffering, was inconsistent with the evidence such that denial of Rule 59 relief was an abuse of discretion.
2. If the damages verdict was the product of compromise or was otherwise invalid, whether the proper remedy was a new trial limited to damages or a new trial on all issues.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the contractor’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50.
4. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to substitute the workers’ compensation carrier as the plaintiff as the real party in interest.
5. Whether prejudgment interest was properly awarded on the medical-expense and lost-wage awards as amounts ascertainable with certainty.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the denial of Smedberg’s Rule 59 motion, holding the $0 non-economic damages award could not be reconciled with the economic awards and undisputed evidence of serious injury and surgical treatment.
- The court ordered a new trial limited to damages, concluding the error was confined to damages and did not require retrial of liability or comparative fault.
- The court affirmed the denial of the contractor’s Rule 50 motion, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find negligence and causation.
- The court affirmed the denial of substitution of the workers’ compensation carrier, allowing Smedberg to remain the named plaintiff despite the carrier’s subrogation interest.
- The court affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on medical expenses and lost wages as sums certain or readily ascertainable.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court abuses its discretion in denying Rule 59 relief when a damages verdict is internally inconsistent and unsupported by the evidence, including where economic damages for serious injury are awarded but non-economic damages are set at zero without a rational basis.
- A new trial may be limited to damages when liability has been fairly and distinctly determined and the damages error is separable from liability and comparative-fault findings.
- Judgment as a matter of law is improper where, viewing the evidence most favorably to the nonmovant, a reasonable jury could find negligence and proximate causation.
- An injured employee may prosecute a third-party negligence action in her own name even when a workers’ compensation carrier holds a subrogation interest; substitution of the carrier is not required to protect that interest.
- Prejudgment interest may be awarded on medical expenses and lost wages that are liquidated or readily ascertainable in definite amounts.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the damages verdict because awarding $0 for pain and suffering was incompatible with the jury’s economic awards for a serious injury and surgery, and it remanded for a new trial limited to damages while leaving the liability and comparative-fault determinations intact and affirming the rulings on judgment as a matter of law, party substitution, and prejudgment interest.


Smedberg v. Detlef’s Custodial Servs., Inc., 940 A.2d 674 (Vt. 2007)