Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants Warren and Wynne Kirschbaum appealed a trial court's ruling in favor of Appellee First Quality Carpets, Inc. arising from a dispute they had over carpet installed in 2007. The Kirschbaums argued that the civil division erred in awarding First Quality attorney's fees under 9 V.S.A. 4007(c) of the Prompt Pay Act because that section of the statute authorizing attorney's fees recovery effectively expired in 1996 pursuant to a sunset provision included in the Act. Alternatively, the Kirschbaums argued that because they withheld payment to First Quality in good faith, they were entitled to a directed verdict and that First Quality should not have been awarded attorney's fees under 4007(c). Finally, the Kirschbaums argued that the court erred in denying their counterclaim under the Consumer Fraud Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all respects.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether, and to what extent, a state's attorney was entitled to official immunity from civil liability for allegedly tortuous conduct concerning a local police officer. The trial court concluded that liability for the acts complained of was precluded by either qualified or absolute immunity, or was otherwise barred. In February 2010 when Plaintiff was employed as a police officer with the South Burlington Police Department, filed a complaint against Defendant, the Chittenden County State's Attorney, stating claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with Plaintiff's employment. The complaint alleged that Defendant (formerly a private lawyer and a member of what Plaintiff characterized as the Vermont "Drug Bar") harbored an animus against Plaintiff due to his police work. Plaintiff claimed that as state's attorney Defendant had "maliciously pursued a course of action . . . to undermine Plaintiff's work and credibility in the law enforcement community." As alleged in the complaint and in Plaintiff's later responses to discovery, Defendant's tortious misconduct included meeting with Plaintiff's supervisors to criticize his job performance and falsely accuse him of dishonesty; declining to file charges or seek search warrants based on Plaintiff's affidavits; threatening not to work with Plaintiff and thereby end his career if Plaintiff attempted to bypass the State's Attorney's office and obtain warrants directly from the trial court; criticizing Plaintiff's work when he was being considered by the State Police to serve on its Drug Task Force; impugning Plaintiff's honesty to other prosecutors; encouraging the filing of a civil-rights lawsuit against Plaintiff and testifying falsely in that action; and "leaking" harmful information about Plaintiff to criminal defense attorneys. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded "[t]he trial court's ruling was sound" and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the State's Attorney was entitled to absolute immunity.

James Bennett, the father of Brooke Bennett and the administrator of her estate, appealed a trial court's declaration of no coverage for the claims made in the lawsuit filed against homeowner Denise Woodward for negligent supervision and damages arising out of the abduction, assault, and death of his daughter, Brooke. Woodward was formerly married to Brooke’s uncle, Michael Jacques, who was alleged to have kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered Brooke. Woodward's insurer brought a declaratory judgment action asking the trial court to hold that its policy does not cover these claims. The trial court decided the case on summary judgment, holding that the insurance policy excluded coverage and Bennett appealed. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, concluding that insurer owed no duty of defense or indemnification in the underlying suit in part because the policy barred coverage for intentional acts by "an insured" that are not "occurrences." The court rejected Bennett's argument that the separate insureds, or severability clause provided coverage for homeowner because the complaint alleged that the uncle committed intentional acts. On appeal, father reiterated his argument that Jacques' alleged intentional acts did not preclude coverage for homeowner because the policy contained a severability clause. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the plain meaning of the terms in the insurance policy at issue did not include intentional tortious acts nor allowed for severability under the facts of this case.

Following a jury trial, Defendants R. Brown & Sons, Inc., a scrap metal hauling company, and its principal, Robert Brown were found liable for breach of contract, common law fraud, trespass, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and consumer fraud.  Each of these claims stemmed from Defendants' commercial dealings with Plaintiff Rathe Salvage, Inc., a scrap metal salvage yard where Defendant would crush cars and transport the scrap for sale to steel mills.  Defendant was later granted judgment as a matter of law by the trial court overturning the jury's finding of a consumer fraud violation.  Defendant appealed, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in denying judgment in its favor on the remaining claims because the verdicts were based on insufficient evidence; (2) it was entitled to a new trial because Rathe Salvage's attorney improperly argued to the jury that opposing counsel was implicated in withholding evidence; and (3) the case should be remanded due to the trial court's refusal to conduct a Daubert hearing on the admissibility of hauler's polygraph, or lie detector, testing before excluding such evidence from trial.  Rathe Salvage cross-appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Defendant on the consumer fraud claim.  Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on all four issues.

Plaintiff Terrance White appealed a superior court's order in his wrongful death action that granted summary judgment to Defendant Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc. This case arose from the suicide of Plaintiff's fourteen-year-old daughter. Plaintiff sued Defendant, which employed a psychiatrist who was briefly involved with the decedent's case through a telepsychiatry research study. Plaintiff argued that summary judgment was improperly granted on the issue of the duty owed to decedent by the psychiatrist. Ultimately, the trial court found that the psychiatrist's contact with decedent was "so minimal as to not establish a physician-patient relationship," and consequently found that no duty existed at the time of decedent's death. Even assuming that a doctor-patient relationship was established, the court concluded that it was terminated following the video-conference and, thus, any duty was extinguished by termination of the relationship and no duty existed at the time of decedent's death. The court thus granted defendant's summary judgment motion. Plaintiff argued that the court erred in finding that the doctor owed no duty to decedent. They maintained that the doctor had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect decedent from the danger she posed to herself, and that the doctor did not effectively terminate the doctor-patient relationship prior to decedent's death. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiff and thus reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

The issue on this appeal centers on who should bear responsibility for the cost of cleaning up petroleum contamination caused by releases from a gas station's underground storage tanks. The controversy in this appeal was between the State of Vermont, which runs the Vermont Petroleum Cleanup Fund (VPCF) and Stonington Insurance Co. (Stonington), which insured Bradford Oil, the owner of the underground storage tanks, for approximately a three-and-a-half-year period. The State appealed the trial court's judgment limiting Stonington's liability to a 4/27 share of past and future cleanup costs and awarded the State $45,172.05. On appeal, the State argued: (1) the Supreme Court's application of time-on-the-risk allocation in "Towns v. Northern Security Insurance Co." did not preclude joint and several liability under all standard occurrence-based policy language; (2) the circumstances here, including the reasonable expectations of the insured and the equity and policy considerations, support imposing joint and several liability on Stonington for all of the State's VPCF expenditures; and (3) even if time-on-the-risk allocation would otherwise be appropriate, Stonington was not entitled to such allocation because it failed to show sufficient facts to apply this allocation method in this case. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "Towns" was the controlling case law here, and the Court was unconvinced by the State's reasonable expectations, equity, and policy arguments to distinguish the "Towns" decision. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

The issue at the heart of this appeal asked the Supreme Court Court to decide if an eighteen-year-old has a duty to control the behavior of a fifteen-year-old friend and, if the fifteen-year-old later commits suicide, whether the eighteen-year-old is at fault.  Alexandra Brown was fifteen years old when she committed suicide in the early morning of February 21, 2007.  Two nights before, she and eighteen-year-old Defendant Kayla Leonard decided to go to a party at an acquaintance's apartment.  Each girl had lied to her parents, telling them that she was sleeping over at the other's house.  Kayla picked Alex up at her home and drove them both to the apartment.  There the girls danced and drank alcohol Alex provided. Ultimately, the girls spent the night, sharing a room with a nineteen-year-old man who lived in the apartment.  During the night Alex had sexual intercourse with the nineteen-year-old.  Kayla was aware the two were intimate but did not know they had intercourse. Kayla drove Alex home the next morning.  Her stepfather became suspicious when he saw Alex leave the house, walk down the driveway to a car, and drive away.  He called Alex's mother, who was in Florida at the time, and told her of his suspicions.  Alex's mother called the girl's house and found out that there were no plans for Alex to spend the night.  She then called Alex's cell phone and left a message to confront Alex.  The police were called. Alex's mother called several more times and left messages, including one that threatened "massive, massive consequences" because of Alex's behavior. Throughout the night, while driving around Rutland with a friend and later alone at her house, Alex sent numerous text messages to her friends telling them she had been caught by her parents and describing the trouble she was in.  She also sent numerous text messages to her boyfriend, who was away at college, one of which said, "I got caught tonight.  I'm grounded forever. Goodbye." While she mentioned suicide in some of her text messages, she never sent Kayla such a message. At some point in the evening, back at her house, Alex composed a suicide note.  Alex carried out the plan she had discussed in her note and hanged herself from a tree in her yard.  Her body was discovered by a neighbor the next morning. Plaintiff, Alex's mother acting as administrator of her estate, sued Kayla alleging that Kayla was negligent for bringing Alex to the apartment party, that Kayla should have intervened to prevent Alex from having sexual intercourse with the nineteen-year-old, and that, because she failed to do so, Kayla negligently caused Alex to suffer emotional harm.  Plaintiff further claimed that Kayla's negligence caused a delirium or insanity in Alex and "as a proximate result thereof, she committed suicide."  Kayla moved for summary judgment arguing that she owed no duty to Alex and that her actions were not the proximate cause of Alex's suicide.  The trial court granted Kayla's motion, and from that decision Plaintiff appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant and concluded she had no duty to intervene to prevent the tragedy that occurred: "Plaintiff essentially advocates that we find a duty simply because one girl was eighteen and the other was fifteen.  The law does not impose such a duty in this situation a duty for an eighteen-year-old to protect a high school friend who has not reached the age of majority from the consequences of the younger person's independent behavior or to control such behavior."

Employer Ethan Allen, Inc. appealed the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's decision that Claimant Robin Houle's right shoulder condition was compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act.  Claimant experienced pain and weakness in her left shoulder and arm, and her job duties as a furniture refinisher were modified to account for her medical restrictions.  Claimant was assigned to an inventory control/stockroom clerk position where she engaged in a variety of duties.  Interspersed among these duties, claimant also wrapped finished shelves to prepare them for shipping. Claimant was initially treated for the increased symptoms in her shoulder and neck by her primary care provider.  The primary care provider referred her to an orthopedist for further evaluation.  The orthopedist suspected that her left shoulder complaints were most likely due to her repetitive work for Ethan Allen.  He attributed claimant's right shoulder pain to normal wear and tear to be expected of someone claimant's age.  Claimant was dissatisfied with this evaluation and was then referred to an orthopedic surgeon for further evaluation and treatment. In view of the competing expert medical opinions, the Commission relied on a traditional five-part test to evaluate their persuasiveness. Ethan Allen raised numerous arguments on appeal to the Supreme Court. Principal among them, Ethan Allen challenged the Commissioner's use of the five-part test to evaluate competing medical opinions, both as applied in this case and in general.  According to the Employer, the use of this test improperly shifts the burden of proof from claimant to employer, unfairly places employers at a disadvantage, and erroneously employs a "winner take all" approach to evaluating a claimant's expert testimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Ethan Allen failed to show that the Commissioner's findings were clearly erroneous or that her conclusions were unsupported by the findings. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision in this case.

This case stemmed from a contract between the City of Rutland and the Vermont Swim Association (VSA). The City granted VSA use of a City facility for a swim meet. A child attending the swim meet was injured when she fell from a piece of playground equipment where the meet was held. The childâs parents, Plaintiffs David and Susan Southwick, sued the City, which then sued VSA. The City sought indemnity from VSA pursuant to the contract between them. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the City, and awarded $700,000 on the indemnity claim. VSA appealed, arguing that the contract contained no express intent to indemnify the City for the Cityâs negligence. The Supreme Court found that the terms and circumstances of the agreement between the City and VSA demonstrated that VSA contracted to indemnify the City for claims such as those resulting from the Southwicksâ injury. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City.

Homeowners Kenneth and Larissa Trinder filed a declaratory judgment action to establish Defendant Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Companyâs (Company) obligation to defend or indemnify them regarding an encroachment of their septic system onto their neighborâs property. The Trinders purchased the land in question in 2005. In conjunction with the sale, they purchased title insurance from the Company to defend themselves against situations that might make their title unmarketable or where they would be forced to remove an existing structure on their property because it extends onto someone elseâs. The Trindersâ neighbor was the Mount Holly Community Historical Museum. The Museum called the Trinders to inform them that the Museum intended to expand its facility, and it wanted to reach a settlement with the Trinders that implicated the use of their septic system. The Trinders perceived the Museumâs call (and subsequent letter) as a threat to their title, and contacted their real estate closing attorney, who filed a claim to the Company on their behalf. The Company responded that the matter didnât impact their title. In September, 2008, the Trinders filed suit against the Company seeking to protect its right to have the septic system on the museumâs land, based on the âforced removal and marketabilityâ provisions of the title insurance. Following a bench trial, the court ordered judgment in favor of the Company. The court concluded a plain reading of the insurance policy showed there was no coverage under the forced removal clause, and that the marketability provision did not apply. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courtâs reasoning and affirmed its order on appeal.