Barton v. Wharf Lane Hous.

• Docket Number: 23-AP-177
• Decision Date: 21 December 2023
• Parties: Charlotte Barton * v. Wharf Lane Housing LP & Burlington Housing Authority
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

1

Charlotte Barton *
v.
Wharf Lane Housing LP & Burlington Housing Authority

No. 23-AP-177

Supreme Court of Vermont

December 21, 2023

APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division CASE NO. 722-8-19 Cncv Trial Judge: Helen M. Toor

ENTRY ORDER

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Plaintiff appeals a civil division order granting defendants judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, plaintiff argues that there was sufficient evidence submitted at trial to support the jury's verdict. We reverse and remand for entry of the jury verdict.

Plaintiff lives in an apartment complex owned by defendants. On March 22, 2017, around 6:30 a.m., plaintiff fell on ice as she was walking across the parking lot to her vehicle. Plaintiff seriously injured her leg. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendants were negligent in maintaining the parking lot. The case proceeded to trial. At trial, plaintiff alleged that ice formed in the parking lot from either melting snowbanks near her car or small amounts of precipitation that fell in the early morning. Following plaintiffs presentation of evidence, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied the motion and allowed the case to proceed to verdict. The jury found defendants were 95% negligent and plaintiff was 5% negligent, and awarded plaintiff $250,000 in damages.

Defendants renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted defendants' motion, concluding that there was no evidence that defendants knew or should have known that there was, or was likely to be, ice in areas of the parking lot on the morning in question. The court explained that the evidence showed that there was no ice the night before at 9 p.m., that the temperature reached freezing level at 3:00 a.m. and there was ice by 6:30 a.m., but the entire parking lot was not icy. Therefore, the expert testimony established that the earliest time that the ice could have formed was three and half hours before plaintiffs fall. The court noted that the forecast did not predict ice and there was no other warning to defendants that ice was forming. The court rejected plaintiffs argument that defendants had a duty to continually monitor the parking lot for icy conditions. Plaintiff appealed.

A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be granted when "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury" to find for a party. V.R.C.P. 50(a). This Court

2

reviews a decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law using the same standard as the trial court and will "consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, excluding the effect of any modifying evidence." Follo v. Florindo, 2009 VT 11, ¶ 26, 185 Vt. 390. In assessing a motion for judgment...