Vermont Injury Verdicts and Settlements

This page delves into settlement amounts and jury payouts in personal injury cases in Vermont. Our attorneys also provide an analysis of Vermont personal injury law that you need to know if you are bringing a lawsuit.

If you are a victim of personal injury filing a compensation claim in Vermont, you are certainly interested in understanding the potential range of settlement payouts for your claim. Why? Because the ultimate goal of a personal injury or wrongful death claim is financial compensation. This page is designed to analyze how personal injury cases have been resolved in Vermont, giving you the ability to align your claim with Vermont personal injury settlement statistics and example settlements and jury payouts.

But tread carefully. Comparing two similar cases and expecting the same outcome makes sense in theory. But the cases rarely line up as they seem to. Each case is unique. Often the driving factors behind a settlement payout cannot be encapsulated in a case summary. But analyzing similar cases and statistics does offer you more insight into the potential value of your injury claim. That is why we’ve collated and presented this information to you. So you can learn from example settlements as long as you take them with a bucket of salt.

If you been injured by a product, an accident, or by medical malpractice, call us at 800-553-8082 or get a free confidential online consultation.

Vermont Injury Verdicts and Settlements

2026 Vermont: $1,400,000 Verdict. The plaintiff underwent surgery in May 2020 to remove his left testicle after a diagnosis of testicular cancer. His treating providers recommended post-surgical surveillance rather than chemotherapy or radiation. The plaintiff alleged that during follow-up in 2021, he repeatedly reported worsening erectile dysfunction, pelvic pain, and urinary difficulty, but his providers failed to adequately investigate his symptoms. He further claimed that radiologic images taken in January and April 2021 showed a metastatic pelvic tumor that was not identified or acted upon. According to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to properly interpret imaging studies, failed to communicate relevant clinical information to radiologists, and failed to meet the applicable standard of care in monitoring for recurrence. He contended that the delayed recognition of metastatic disease postponed necessary treatment and caused additional harm. A Vermont jury found Dartmouth Health entities liable for medical malpractice and awarded $1,400,000 in damages, while rejecting a separate implied consent claim.
2025 Vermont: $59,240 Verdict. The plaintiff, Justin Tiedemann, alleged that he was delivering a FedEx package to the residence of Bernard and Catherine Wheeler when he slipped and fell on snow-covered debris in the walkway. He claimed to have suffered a right displaced fibula fracture that required surgery and asserted that he was unable to return to his employment with FedEx, resulting in limited future job opportunities. The plaintiff contended that the defendants failed to clear and maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition for a delivery. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. The jury awarded $59,372 in economic damages and $5,000 in noneconomic damages and found the defendants 60 percent negligent and the plaintiff 40 percent negligent. The court added $30,236 in pre-judgment interest on the economic losses and $2,475 in costs. After reduction for comparative fault and the addition of interest and costs, the total judgment entered was $59,240.
2025 Vermont: $75,000 Verdict (Reduced to $50,000 Judgment). The plaintiff, Benjamin Clark, alleged his vehicle was struck from behind by an underinsured motorist. He claimed to have suffered personal injuries as a result of the collision. Clark was insured under an automobile policy issued by Amica Mutual Insurance Company and sought uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to that policy. The case proceeded to a jury trial in Washington County Superior Court. The jury awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in damages.
2024 Vermont: $893,453 Verdict. The plaintiff was working as a rigger and millwright and operating a 2-ton electric hoist owned by the defendant. The plaintiff said the safety latch on the hook failed, causing his hand to get caught in the wire rope sling. The plaintiff’s fingers were reportedly crushed. The plaintiff asserted the safety latch and/or hook were damaged and/or defective, the defendants knew they were damaged and/or defective, and the defendants failed to inspect, repair, or replace the latch. He contended the defendants negligently furnished him a dangerous hoist.
2023 Vermont: $250,000 Verdict. Plaintiff John Sullivan said he presented to a hospital due to shortness of breath, was diagnosed with a pneumothorax and was treated by defendant, who prescribed an antibiotic for him prior to discharge to treat a perceived urinary tract infection. The plaintiff reportedly contracted an infection, allegedly due to use of an antibiotic prescribed by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant prescribed the antibiotic to the plaintiff after a misinterpretation of the plaintiff’s medical chart, failed to provide him with the applicable standard of care and was the proximate cause of his injuries.
2022 Vermont: $5,250,000 Verdict. A woman had claimed that her doctor used his own sperm to impregnate her during an artificial insemination procedure over 40 years ago, The jury awarded the woman $250,000 in compensatory damages for her injuries and $5 million in punitive damages for the doctor’s misconduct.
2018, Vermont: $400,000 Verdict. A woman suffered severe abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with diverticulitis. The woman underwent abdominal surgery. She aspirated while anesthetized. The woman’s condition worsened. She was brought to another facility. The woman underwent additional procedures. She also underwent treatments for a severe infection. The woman underwent a temporary colostomy. She was left with permanent bowel issues. The woman alleged negligence against the hospital. She claimed the general surgeon failed to receive her informed consent and offer abscess drainage. The jury awarded $400,000.
2018, Vermont: $6,590 Verdict. A man was rear-ended. He sprained his spine and suffered muscle spasms. The man alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. He claimed he texted while driving and failed to maintain an appropriate lookout. The Chittenden County jury awarded $6,590.
2017, Vermont: $286,185 Verdict. A 51-year-old man was rear-ended. He suffered C4-C6 injuries and the aggravation of his pre-existing degenerative cervical condition. The man alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. He claimed he failed to safely operate his vehicle. The Chittenden County jury awarded the man $286,185.
2015, Vermont: $267,240 Verdict. A woman was struck by a bus in Burlington. She suffered C2 nerve damage. The woman developed permanent head and neck pain and paresthesia. She alleged negligence against the bus driver. The woman claimed he made a negligent wide left turn and failed to follow safety statutes. A Chittenden County jury awarded her $267,240.
2014, Vermont: $61,329 Verdict. An 87-year-old woman was rear-ended. She suffered a soft-tissue neck injury. The woman alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. She claimed she failed to maintain an appropriate lookout. A Chittenden County jury awarded $61,329.
2014, Vermont: $5,626 Verdict. A woman was rear-ended. She suffered whiplash. The woman developed recurring headaches and spinal pain. She alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. The woman claimed he failed to maintain an appropriate lookout and failed to timely slow down. A Rutland County jury awarded $5,626.
2014, Vermont: $40,000 Verdict. A 49-year-old man was rear-ended. He suffered the exacerbation of his pre-existing neck radiculopathy. The man alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. He claimed she failed to safely operate her vehicle and maintain an appropriate lookout. A Chittenden County jury awarded $40,000.

Vermont Personal Injury Law

These are the key Vermont personal injury laws you need to know.

Caps on Damages in Vermont

Vermont has no cap on damages. This has a huge impact on average personal injury settlement amount in Vermont for obvious reasons.

Personal Injury Statute of Limitations in Vermont

Vermont follows a statute of limitations for personal injury claims, which sets a time limit for when a legal action must be initiated. In Vermont, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three years. This means that the victim must file their lawsuit within three years from the date of the injury or from the date when they knew or should have known about their injuries.

However, in some cases, the injury may not be immediately apparent or may develop over time. In such cases, Vermont follows the “discovery rule” which allows the statute of limitations to be shifted. The discovery rule means that the statute of limitations clock begins running on the date that the injured victim knew or should have known about their injuries, rather than the date of the accident itself.

The application of the discovery rule in Vermont has been recognized in several cases. In this case, the Vermont Supreme Court held that the discovery rule applies to medical malpractice cases and the statute of limitations clock begins running when the injured party knows or should have known of the injury and its causal connection to the defendant’s actions.

No Sex Abuse Statute of Limitations in Vermont

In 2019, Vermont passed a law to eliminate the statute of limitations for sex abuse victims. This law also permits survivors to bring sex abuse and clergy abuse lawsuits against institutions, organizations, or companies that permitted or perpetuated the abuse.

Vermont clergy abuse lawsuits

Comparative Negligence

In 1970, Vermont adopted comparative negligence “as a replacement for the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, which denied the plaintiff any recovery if the jury found that the plaintiff was negligent to any extent and the negligence was a proximate cause of the damage.” What this means is that if you get hurt or your property gets damaged because of someone else’s negligence, you can still recover damages (money) even if you were also partially at fault. But the amount of money you receive will be reduced based on how much of the accident was your fault.

For example, if you were 30% at fault and the other person was 70% at fault, you would receive 70% of the total damages awarded. If there are multiple people responsible for the accident, each person will be responsible for paying a portion of the damages based on their level of fault.

Vermont Medical Malpractice Law

What Malpractice Victims Must Prove

In order to bring a successful medical malpractice claim in Vermont, the plaintiff must prove that the healthcare provider owed a duty of care to the patient, that the provider breached this duty of care, and that the breach caused harm to the patient. In order to prove breach of duty, the plaintiff must show that the healthcare provider did not act in accordance with the accepted standards of care in the medical community.

Unlike most states, the standard of care is defined by Vermont law (12 V.S.A. § 1908(1)):

The standard of care is the degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by a reasonably skillful, careful, and prudent health care professional engaged in a similar practice under the same or similar circumstances.

This language matters. The phrase “same or similar circumstances” can become a central issue at trial.

If the plaintiff is successful in their medical malpractice claim, they may be entitled to recover damages such as medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for pain and suffering. In Vermont, there is no cap on the amount of damages that may be awarded in a medical malpractice case.

Certificate of Merit Required for Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Vermont malpractice law requires patients suing a doctor or other healthcare provider to show that another healthcare provider in the same of similar specialty will testify that the doctor did something wrong that caused harm to the patient. So Vermont medical malpractice lawyers prepare a document called a “certificate of merit” that states they talked to the other healthcare provider, and that the provider thinks the doctor did something wrong, and that it caused the harm. Without a certificate of merit, your case would likely get thrown out unless you have a rare case where the judge thinks that an expert isn’t needed to prove the case.

Unlike many other states, Vermont does not make an effort to limit professional expert testimony. Any expert witness otherwise qualified under the requirements of Rule 702 of the Vermont Rules of Evidence can testify as an expert.

Vermont Mass Tort Claims

There are a number of national mass tort cases, often referred to as class actions, that involve plaintiffs from Vermont. Most of these claims are grounded in product liability law and allege that manufacturers failed to adequately test, warn about, or disclose serious health risks associated with their products. Our law firm is actively handling many of these cases for clients across the country, including Vermont residents.

Roundup cancer lawsuits: Mounting scientific evidence has linked prolonged exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides, including the widely used weedkiller Roundup, to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Internal corporate documents revealed during litigation have intensified allegations that the manufacturer failed to properly warn consumers about potential cancer risks. As a result, tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed nationwide. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, has paid out and set aside billions of dollars to resolve existing and future claims, though litigation remains ongoing as new cases continue to be filed.
AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits: These cases allege that exposure to aqueous film-forming foam, commonly known as AFFF, has caused serious cancers, including kidney cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, and other health conditions. AFFF contains PFAS chemicals, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” because they accumulate in the human body and persist in the environment. Firefighters, military personnel, airport workers, and others with occupational exposure are among the primary plaintiffs. The federal multidistrict litigation for AFFF claims remains one of the largest environmental mass tort proceedings in the country.
Hair relaxer lawsuit: Emerging scientific research has linked the long term use of chemical hair relaxer products, most commonly marketed to and used by African American women, to a significantly increased risk of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine fibroids, and other serious reproductive health conditions. These products often contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals that may alter hormonal balance over time. As more data has become available, hundreds of women across the country have filed lawsuits alleging that manufacturers failed to adequately test these products or warn consumers about the potential cancer risks associated with prolonged exposure.
Depo Provera lawsuit: New lawsuits have been filed by women who allege that prolonged use of Depo Provera, a popular injectable birth control medication, caused them to develop meningioma brain tumors. Plaintiffs claim that the manufacturer failed to properly study and disclose the potential link between long term exposure to synthetic progestins and tumor growth. These cases seek compensation for significant medical expenses, invasive surgeries, long term neurological complications, and the profound life disruption that can follow a brain tumor diagnosis.
Nitrous Oxide lawsuit: A growing wave of litigation involves nitrous oxide cartridges, commonly sold under brand names such as Whip-Its, Galaxy Gas, and Baking Bad. These products, which are often labeled as culinary tools for whipped cream dispensers, are now the subject of lawsuits filed across the country. Our lawyers are actively handling claims against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers on behalf of individuals who have suffered serious injuries linked to nitrous oxide exposure.
Spinal Cord Stimulator: A spinal cord stimulator is an implanted medical device designed to treat chronic pain, most commonly involving the lower back, neck, or spine. For a growing number of patients, the device does not simply fail to relieve pain. It creates new and sometimes permanent complications, including painful electrical jolts, burning sensations, infections, lead migration, device malfunction, and repeated surgeries to adjust, repair, or remove hardware intended to improve their quality of life.

Hiring a Lawyer

Our firm handles serious injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Call us at 800-553-8082 or get a free confidential online consultation.