Merritt v. United States Postal Service et al, No. 5:2018cv00200 - Document 232 (D. Vt. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 227 MOTION for Award of Prejudgment Interest. The clerk shall enter final judgment in the amounts ordered. Signed by Chief Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 11/15/2022. (pjl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Merritt v. United States Postal Service et al Doc. 232 Case 5:18-cv-00200-gwc Document 232 Filed 11/15/22 Page 1 of 3 u.5. i-llir i rilil i i.lt:iiiiiu'i uF !,f FILgil UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ?.fiuIH0? DISTRICT OF VERMONT ts flfiLrftT ftr{0${T PH a ts BRUCE E. MERRITT, Plaintifl v. Case UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ETHAN DARLING, and GLORLA HAMMOND, Defendants. No. 5:18-cv-200 ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AI\D ORDER ON MOTION FOR AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (Doc.227) After a bench trial in this negligence case concerning plaintiffBruce Merritt's fall in the parking lot of the Hartland Four Corners post office in Hartland, Vermont on December 1,2015, the court found that plaintiffand one of the defendants, Ethan Darling, were both partially at fault and concluded that defendant Darling was liable to plaintiffin the amount of $144,353. @oc. 224 at 30.) The court ordered plaintiffto submit an interest calculation if he sought interest on the judgment. (/d.) Both sides have now submitted proposed calculations of prejudgment interest. (Docs. 227, 229, 230 and 231.) Discussion The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffls claim against Mr. Darling because this case also included a claim against the United States. The calculation of prejudgment interest is controlled by Vermont law, not federal law. Marfiav. T.C. Ziraat Banlmsi,147 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 1993) ("plederal law does not apply to the calculation of prejudgment interest on supplemental state law claims."). The parties agree that Vermont law applies and that the statutory rate is 12percentper year. 9 V.S.A. $ 4la(a). Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:18-cv-00200-gwc Document 232 Filed 11/15/22 Page 2 of 3 Plaintiffrequests $25,565.75 in pre-judgment interest on his medical expenses and $95,026.43 in discretionary interest on the general damages. (Doc. 227 at 5.) Defendant Darling requests that the court award $21,1,72.48 in interest on plaintiffls medical expenses only. @oc. 229 at 2.) The difference between the two figures for interest on medical expenses is the date from which interest is calculated. Defendant Darling computed interest from the date that plaintiffincurred each expense while plaintiffcomputed interest from the date of his accident. (See Doc. 229-l atl.) The court agrees with defendant Darling that prejudgment interest runs from the date each element of special damage is incurred, not the date of plaintifPs accident. "Prejudgment interest is awarded as of right when damages are liquidated or reasonably certain. The rationale is that the defendant can avoid the accrual of interest by simply tendering to the plaintiffa sum equaltotheamountof damages." EBWS, LLCv. BritlyCorp.o2007VT37,n36,l81 Vt.5l3, 928 A.zd 497 (internal quotation marks omitted and cleaned up). The Vermont Supreme Court approved the award of prejudgrnent interest for medical bills in Smedberg v. Detlef s Custodial Serv., 1nc.,2007 VT 99, 'll 38, 182 Yt. 349,940 A.2d 674. In doing so, it noted that ooas each medical expense was incurred, its cost and date was known precisely. It works no unfaimess on tortfeasors to require them to pay prejudgment interest on medical expenses flowing from their wrongs." ^Id. Since the amount of these expenses is neither known nor owing until after the medical treatment is provided, it would be a windfall to award prejudgment interest before the treatment was provided. The court has also considered Mr. Merritt's requested award of discretionary interest on his pain and suffering and declines to grant such an award. See Estate of Flemingv. Nicholson, 168 Vt. 495, 500,724 A.2d 1026, 1029 (1998) (trial court maintains ability to award 2 Case 5:18-cv-00200-gwc Document 232 Filed 11/15/22 Page 3 of 3 prejudgrnent interest in a discretionary capacrty to avoid injustice). The total amount due to Mr. Merritt, including prejudgment interest on medical bills, fairly compensates him for all aspects of his loss. The issues giving rise to liability, both factual and legal, were fairly contested by both sides. The court found that two of the three defendants, the United States and Gloria Hammond, were not liable at all. ln the court's judgment, the total amount awarded, including approximately $21,000 in prejudgment interest on medical expenses in the amount of $30,603.13 (after reduction for comparative negligence), is sufficient to fully compensate plaintiffwithout a further award of prejudgment interest on the amount awarded for general damages. The amounts due to plaintiffin the final judgment order are: 1. Damages in the amount of $144,353; 2. Pre-judgment interest in the amount of 521,172.48; 3. Costs in the amount of $2.927.40.r Total: $168,452.88 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Menitt's Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest (Doc. 227) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The clerk shall enter final judgment in the amounts set out above. Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 15tr day of November, 2022. Geoftey W. Crawford, Chief Judge United States District Court I The court removed the witness and mileage fee for Francene Ellis who was not permitted to testi$ at trial. Defendant Darling does not object to the remaining costs.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
