McDonald v. Woodruff, 162-73
| Decision Date | 03 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 162-73,162-73 |
| Citation | 133 Vt. 362,340 A.2d 90 |
| Parties | Robert W. McDONALD v. Richard S. WOODRUFF and State of Vermont. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Richard E. Davis Associates, Inc., Barre, for plaintiff.
Dinse, Allen & Erdmann, Burlington, (St. of Vt.) for State of Vt.
Latham, Eastman & Tetzlaff, Burlington, for Richard Woodruff.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, KEYSER, DALEY and LARROW, JJ.
On March 16, 1972, Robert W. McDonald filed a complaint in Washington County (Superior) Court against Richard S. Woodruff and the State of Vermont. The complaint charged that Woodruff, 'individually and as an agent and employee of the State of Vermont, performed an autopsy on Sylvia McDonald, the deceased wife of the plaintiff, and negligently found that there was no evidence of gun powder residue near the wound which caused Sylvia McDonald's death.' It further alleged that as a result of this negligence McDonald was charged with the murder of his wife and was thus forced to spend large sums of money and suffer great public embarrassment, pain of mind, and loss of standing in the community. Defendants filed answers denying the material allegations. The State, in addition, pleaded affirmatively that McDonald had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that the State was immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and that the complaint was further barred by the fact that Doctor Woodruff's acts were clothed with a quasi-judicial privilege.
The State of Vermont subsequently moved for a judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for a summary judgment, citing in support thereof the theories of judicial privilege and sovereign immunity. Following a hearing and '(a)fter consideration of the pleadings and memoranda of law, as well as oral argument and exhibits', the court below granted a summary judgment on behalf of defendant State of Vermont. This appeal, to which defendant Woodruff is not a party, followed.
Whether viewed as a summary judgment or, as plaintiff contends, a judgment on the pleadings, it is clear to us that the decision of the court below raises several important legal issues of potentially far-reaching dimension. Lurking between the lines of plaintiff's seemingly straight-forward complaint are significant questions relating to judicial and discretionary privilege, sovereign immunity, and the substantive law of negligence; a potentially dispositive determination may spring from examination of any one of these areas. These questions may technically be characterized as legal but, as is so often the case, careful consideration of their factual background is a prerequisite to their proper determination. The factual question of whether the State has purchased liability insurance, for instance, may have an important bearing on the issue of sovereign immunity. The question here of whether the complaint states a cause of action in negligence may well turn on whether there was a duty running from defendant Woodruff to this plaintiff. This question, in turn, predominantly rests on the foreseeability of consequences, Thompson v. Green Mountain Power Corp., 120 Vt. 478, 483, 144 A.2d 786 (1958), and its resolution in this case would require a fuller development of the circumstances surrounding the alleged negligence.
The record before us reveals little in the way of necessary factual development beyond the skeletal allegations in the pleadings. Absent this, and lacking any indication from the lower court as to the basis for its decision, we are simply unwilling to render substantive determinations in the posture in which this case has come before us. Important legal questions should not be decided in a vacuum.
Reversed and remanded.
I agree with my brothers that this case must be reversed and remanded, but I cannot subscribe to the reasoning on which they reach that result. It is all very well to opine that legal questions should not be decided in a vacuum, whatever that phrase may mean, but a decision on abstract principles is not necessarily 'in a vacuum.' If it were, dismissal for failure to state a cause of action would be an impossibility, and our rules relating thereto completely meaningless. V.R.C.P. 12(b), 12(c), 12(h)(2); Reporter's Notes to V.R.C.P. 56(c).
However denominated and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green Mountain Power Corp. v. General Elec. Corp., Civ. A. No. 79-112.
...requires a fuller development of the circumstances surrounding the claims of negligence asserted in the complaint. McDonald v. Woodruff, 133 Vt. 362, 363, 340 A.2d 90 (1975). Despite these factual issues, the defendant relies on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766C (1979) to preclude re......
-
Whitchurch v. Perry, 40-79
...at 56-33 (2d ed. 1976); the lower court's characterization of the ruling does not bind us. See McDonald v. Woodruff, 133 Vt. 362, 364, 340 A.2d 90, 92 (1975) (Larrow, J., concurring). This is consistent with the manner in which the parties have proceeded. Such an order is final, so the appe......
-
Lomberg v. Crowley
...8(a). Whether, as a matter of law, he had an absolute defense, depends entirely on a factual determination. See McDonald v. Woodruff, 133 Vt. 362, 340 A.2d 90 (1975). These factual issues may include, among others, whether, at the time of the radio interview, the defendant Crowley was actin......