Endres v. Endres
| Decision Date | 25 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-281.,04-281. |
| Citation | 912 A.2d 975,2006 VT 108 |
| Parties | Joan ENDRES v. Kevin ENDRES. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Present: DOOLEY, JOHNSON, SKOGLUND, REIBER, JJ., and ALLEN, Chief Justice (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
¶ 1. Plaintiff Joan Endres appeals the superior court's dismissal of her complaint for negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against her former husband, Kevin Endres. Wife's complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to her, husband had a sexual affair, contracted Human Papillomavirus (HPV), and then infected wife with the virus. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of wife's claim for negligence. We affirm dismissal of wife's claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
¶ 2. We take as true the following facts alleged in wife's complaint. Amiot v Ames, 166 Vt. 288, 291, 693 A.2d 675, 677 (1997). Husband and wife were married in 1972. At some point during their marriage, husband had an affair. He contracted HPV, as did wife. Wife never had a sexual partner other than husband, and the only established mechanism for cervical HPV infection is through vaginal penetration. Wife suffered injuries as a result of the HPV infection.
¶ 3. Husband filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that: (1) wife's claim of negligence failed because she did not allege that husband actually knew he was infected with HPV, which was required to establish that husband owed a duty to wife; (2) wife's claim of battery failed because, without actual knowledge of his infection, husband lacked the requisite intent; and (3) wife's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress also failed for lack of intent. In addition, husband argued that the doctrine of interspousal immunity prevented wife from asserting any claims against husband. The superior court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that all of wife's claims required an allegation that husband knew or should have known that he was infected with HPV, and wife had failed to allege such knowledge. Wife filed this appeal.
¶ 4. We first address wife's negligence claim. The trial court dismissed this count for failure to state a claim, concluding that wife was required to plead what duty husband owed to her and that she had failed to articulate a specific duty. Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) explains that the pleading should set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." V.R.C.P. 8(a). Our procedural rules do "not require a specific and detailed statement of facts constituting the cause of action." Levinsky v. Diamond, 140 Vt. 595, 600, 442 A.2d 1277, 1280 (1982), overruled on other grounds by Muzzy v. State, 155 Vt. 279, 280 n. *, 583 A.2d 82, 83 n. * (1990). The complaint need only give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Lane v. Town of Grafton, 166 Vt. 148, 152-53, 689 A.2d 455, 457 (1997). Additionally, motions under Rule 12(b)(6) are not favored and rarely granted, especially when the asserted theory of liability is novel. Ass'n of Haystack Prop. Owners v. Sprague, 145 Vt. 443, 446-47, 494 A.2d 122, 125 (1985).
¶ 5. Here, wife alleged that husband acted negligently in transmitting an STD to her and that she has suffered injuries as a result of this transmission. Although wife has not specifically enumerated facts to demonstrate that husband owed her a legal duty and breached that duty, such specificity is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Richardson
...shortly after he "shot her in the head at close range with a .22 caliber rifle" and she filed for divorce); Endres v. Endres , 180 Vt. 640, 912 A.2d 975, 976-77 (2006) (affirming the dismissal of plaintiff's IIED claim against her former husband because she could not prove the intent requir......
-
Ondovchik Family Ltd. P'ship v. Agency Of Transp.
...summary, although landowner presents novel theories of liability-which courts should usually be “especially” hesitant to dismiss, Endres v. Endres, 2006 VT 108, ¶ 4, 180 Vt. 640, 912 A.2d 975 (mem.)-we hold as a matter of law that in this case landowner fails to state a cause of action for ......
-
Bock v. Gold
...n. *, 583 A.2d 82, 83 n. * (1990). Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are disfavored and should be rarely granted. Endres v. Endres, 2006 VT 108, ¶ 4, 180 Vt. 640, 912 A.2d (mem.). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only when it is beyond doubt that there exist no facts or......
-
Hudson v. Dr. Michael J. O'Connell's Pain Care Ctr., Inc.
...partner had herpes, that O'Connell knew that he had contracted herpes, or that he intended to infect Hudson. See Endres v. Endres, 180 Vt. 640, 912 A.2d 975, 976–77 (2006) (holding that intent is an element of battery that requires an allegation that defendant knew he was infected). To stat......
-
§ 8.01 Personal Injury Claims
...Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1042 (Tenn. App. 2000). Texas: Stafford v. Stafford, 726 S.W.2d 14 (Tex. 1987). Vermont: Endres v. Endres, 180 Vt. 640, 912 A.2d 975 (2006). Of course transmitting the AIDS virus could be the basis of a cause of action. Silva v. Silva's Estate, 15 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1181 ......