Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. v. Beta Techs.

• Citation: 2023 Vt Super 110102
• Docket Number: 22-CV-03976
• Decision Date: 01 November 2023
• Parties: Mansfield Heliflight, Inc. v. Beta Technologies, Inc. et al
• Court: Superior Court of Vermont

1

2023 Vt Super 110102

Mansfield Heliflight, Inc.
v.
Beta Technologies, Inc. et al

No. 22-CV-03976

Superior Court of Vermont, Civil Division, Chittenden Unit

November 1, 2023

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Helen M. Toor, Superior Court Judge

Title: Motion for Summary Judgment on Mansfield Heliflight's Trespass Claim (Motion: 29)

Filer: Ritchie E. Berger

Filed Date: July 20, 2023

Defendant Beta Technologies Inc. moves for summary judgment on the trespass claim against it, arguing that Mansfield impliedly consented to Beta's use of the now-disputed outdoor areas. Implied consent can be a defense to a trespass claim:

Even when the person concerned does not in fact agree to the conduct of the other, his words or acts or even his inaction may manifest a consent that will justify the other in acting in reliance upon them. This is true when the words or acts or silence and inaction, would be understood by a reasonable person as intended to indicate consent and they are in fact so understood by the other. This conduct is not merely evidence that consent in fact exists, to be weighed against a denial. It is a manifestation of apparent consent, which justifies the other in acting on the assumption that consent is given and is as effective to prevent liability in tort as if there were consent in fact

Harris v. Carbonneau, 165 Vt. 433, 437 (1996) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 892 cmt. c (1979). Beta asserts that Mansfield knew as of January of 2022 that the city was considering leasing Beta the disputed space, knew as of July 2022 that the City Council had approved a lease with Beta that included the now-disputed area, and failed to object at any time until this suit was filed on November 10, 2022. Instead, Mansfield vacated the area now at issue during the month of August. Beta argues that Mansfield

2

impliedly consented to Beta's use because it stood by silently and took no action to object.

Mansfield presents evidence that it had told Beta back in April and December of 2021, and January of 2022, that it wanted to keep the now-disputed area, and objected to Beta taking it over. Chase Declaration ¶¶ 5-6,11,15-18. Mansfield also points out that it continued to use the space until September 1, 2022, and that it filed this lawsuit within six weeks of vacating the space. Id. ¶ 26.

The key undisputed fact here, however, is that Beta vacated the now-disputed space in August of 2022. Whatever opposition it had...