NHCaseLaw.com

The defendants motion for new trial is denied. The court finds that the plaintiffs' counsel did not mislead the jury or intentionally misstate the law regarding punitive as opposed to enhanced damages. The court finds that the plaintiffs' counsel's argument was not improper. The plaintiffs' counsel correctly told the jury the law in this case.

GALWAY, J. The plaintiffs, Howard Joseph Guyotte and Louise A. Guyotte, appeal, and the defendants, Michael O’Neill and Bay Shores Building and Remodeling, LLC, cross-appeal, from a jury verdict in Superior Court (Smukler, J.) in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

This is a civil action for severance pay and liquidated damages under RSA 275. The jury was instructed to determine whether a contract existed between the defendant corporation and the plaintiff for the payment of severance pay, what the terms of the contract were, and whether the defendant breached the contract. The jury was instructed that if they found that the corporation was liable for failing to pay severance pay, then the defendant Manesh would be personally liable if he knowingly permitted the corporation to refuse to pay plaintiff the severance pay (RSA 275:42). The jury was instructed that they could award liquidated damages under RSA 275 if they found "that Mr. Manesh willfully and without good cause failed to pay the plaintiff the severance pay."