Rivers v. State
| Decision Date | 02 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 150-73 and 151-73,s. 150-73 and 151-73 |
| Citation | 133 Vt. 11,328 A.2d 398 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mary RIVERS, Administratrix of the Estate of Loretta Patterson v. STATE of Vermont et al. Mary RIVERS, Administratrix of the Estate of Oscar Raymond Patterson v. STATE of Vermont et al. |
McNamara, Fitzpatrick, Sylvester, Farrell & Maley, Burlington, for plaintiff.
Karen McAndrew, Dinse, Allen & Erdmann, Burlington, for defendants.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, KEYSER, DALEY and LARROW, JJ.
These two cases, consolidated below, have a most unhappy state of facts. The two deceased, each represented by the same administratrix, were killed in an atuomobile collision. The pleadings allege that the vehicle in which they were traveling was struck by a truck being driven without lights at a high rate of speed by one Douglas Robtoy, who was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. It was about eight o'clock on a September evening, and the fact that the Pattersons were in a lighted vehicle did not help them. Robtoy, at the time, was an inmate of the Burlington Regional Correctional Center but on release on a weekend pass. It appears from matter in the record that the truck was stolen.
Although a jury was empaneled, no issues of fact were submitted to them, since the ruling which is here appealed came at the close of the plaintiffs' opening statement. At that time, the defendant State of Vermont made a motion which the trial court treated as a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion and discharged the jury. The plaintiffs appealed.
The issues presented relate, first, to the presence of proximate cause as it applies to the defendants Department of Corrections and State of Vermont, and, second, to sovereign immunity as it may be available to these same parties in this case. As to this last issue, an additional concern is the plaintiffs' indicated wish to amend the pleadings to insure the proper presentation of the sovereign immunity question. Fundamentally, the plaintiffs are asserting the existence of factual issues requiring submission of the case to the jury, and making a dismissal on an issue of law prior to any factual adjudication erroneous.
Since proximate cause is an issue involved in the granting of the motion, and a vital ingredient of the plaintiffs' cause of action, we will examine that question first. It must be pointed out that this litigation does not make Douglas Robtoy a party. His own liability, if any, is not in issue; and any negligent acts of his are relevant only as a part of the chain of consequences claimed to be set in motion by some alleged negligent act or acts on the part of the defendants, unless his negligence is properly an intervening cause. See Bennett v. Robertson, 107 Vt. 202, 209-210, 177 A. 625 (1935).
There are two interrelated legal concerns involved here. The first is whether or not the acts of the defendants as set out in the pleadings constitute negligence. The second is the related question of whether, if negligence, those acts formed any part of the proximate cause. Without that connection, negligence itself does not support recovery. Paquin v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co., Inc., 116 Vt. 466, 470, 78 A.2d 683 (1951).
It is the granting of a weekend pass to Robtoy that is set out as the triggering negligent act of the defendants. Certainly the granting of furloughs in this manner is not, per se, a negligent act. Robtoy was released under the authority of State statutes as they then existed. 28 V.S.A. § 109 authorized regional correction centers and envisaged the furloughing of prisoners assigned to such centers. 28 V.S.A. § 207(i)(1) placed authority in the Commissioner of Corrections to grant freedom from close confinement for up to ten days.
These statutes represent a part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuligoski v. Brattleboro Retreat
...reunification underlying both juvenile and adult detention programs. Id. at 177–78, 762 A.2d at 820–21 ; see also Rivers v. State , 133 Vt. 11, 14, 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974) (emphasizing rehabilitative goals of release of inmates on probation or parole, and stating that liability premised on......
-
Roberts v. State, 83-170
...claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences." Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14, 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974). Without the limitations of proximate cause, the scope of liability for a defendant's negligence may be extended almost......
-
Goldberg v. Quiros
...injurious consequences." Lavoie v. Pac. Press & Shear Co., a Div. of Canron Corp., 975 F.2d 48, 57 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Rivers v. State, 328 A.2d 398, 400 (Vt. 1974)); Estate of Sumner v. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 649 A.2d 1034, 1036 (Vt. 1994) (holding that causation is not establis......
-
Goldberg v. Dufour
...injurious consequences." Lavoie v. Pac. Press & Shear Co., a Div. of Canron Corp., 975 F.2d 48, 57 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Rivers v. State, 328 A.2d 398, 400 (Vt. 1974)); Estate of Sumner v. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 649 A.2d 1034, 1036 (Vt. 1994) (holding that causation is not establis......