Bridge v. Woodstock Union High School Dist., 62-68

• Decision Date: 20 June 1969
• Docket Number: No. 62-68,62-68
• Citation: 255 A.2d 683,127 Vt. 598
• Parties: Ferris BRIDGE v. WOODSTOCK UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 683

255 A.2d 683

127 Vt. 598

Ferris BRIDGE v. WOODSTOCK UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 62-68.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

June 20, 1969.

Ryan, Smith & Carbine and George W. F. Cook, Rutland, for plaintiff.

French & Miller, Rutland, for defendant.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., SHANGRAW, BARNEY and KEYSER, JJ., and DALEY, Supr. J BARNEY, Justice.

A skidding motorcycle, out of control, passing a stopped school bus on the wrong side, struck Valerie Bridge just after she stepped off the bus. The accident took place in the yard of a restaurant where Valerie, a high school junior and very close to sixteen, was employed. She was on her way to work after school at the time. Valerie was painfully hurt, breaking both bones of her right leg, as well as suffering additional cuts and bruises. Although she only missed a week of school, returning on crutches, she was unable to return to any regular work for more than six months.

This suit, however, is not one seeking recovery for Valerie's injuries, but is a suit brought by her father to recover for his loss of her services and her loss of wages, as well as for the medical and other associated expenses he incurred through her injury. His complaint is directed only against the union high school district, claiming that negligence on the part of the driver concurred with that of the motorcyclist in causing the accident. On trial, the lower court ruled, at the close of the plaintiff's case, that the evidence, as a matter of law, had so far failed to establish negligence as to prevent a submission of the issue to the jury. The plaintiff has appealed the direction of a verdict against him to this Court.

When a directed verdict is reviewed, the evidence must be viewed in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff, without regard for modifying evidence. Berry v. Whitney, 125 Vt. 383, 385, 217 A.2d 41. Taken in that light, the question then is whether the evidence established negligence on the part of the defendant, through its bus driver, sufficient to require submission of the question to the jury. Rivard v. Roy, 124 Vt. 32, 37, 196 A.2d 497. Any such negligence, moreover, to have application on this issue, must form some part of the proximate cause of the accident. Eastman v. Williams, 124 Vt. 445, 449, 207 A.2d 146.

The plaintiff claims that the driver of the school bus was negligence in overseeing Valerie's exit from the bus. Two alleged shortcomings are put forward. The first is that the driver failed to keep a proper lookout on Valerie's behalf, and the second is that it was a breach of duty for the driver to indicate to Valerie that she should 'hurry'.

The duty owed by the driver to Valerie was one of due care under the circumstances. McKirryher v. Yager, 112 Vt. 336, 343, 24 A.2d 331.

From the point of view of logical analysis there is little difference between classifying this duty as one involving a high standard of care since it deals with school children, and classifying the standard of care as unchanging, but noting that the circumstances involve school children. There may be forensic advantages in contrasting 'high' and 'ordinary' care, or vice versa, but, in the last analysis, it all comes down to the fact that the driver of a school bus must take into account the age, situation and disposition of his juvenile passengers, and act accordingly for their protection. The question in this case is did he do so with respect to Valerie? LaFaso v. LaFaso, 126 Vt. 90, 96, 223 A.2d 814.

The events began when Valerie boarded the first of two school buses leaving the high school at about the same time, headed east on U. S. Route 4 for the village of Woodstock. On the way, to their right, these two buses would pass the restaurant where Valerie worked. This restaurant was something less than a mile from the school, and situated about 800 feet down a straight stretch of road after a curve, as it was approached for the high school.

The testimony of the various witnesses relating to the accident is remarkably consistent. Two motorcyclists, passing at 40-50 m.p.h. the second or trailing school bus after it had entered upon the straightaway leading past the restaurant, were confronted by the stopped school bus ahead of them discharging Valerie. One motorcycle, operated by a boy named White, had gone on to also pass the other motorcycle, operated by a boy named Eaton, before he discovered his predicament. The White motorcycle, unable to stop for the bus, skidded into the restaurant yard and slid the length of the right-hand side of the bus striking Valerie. Defective brakes contributed to his loss of control. The Eaton...