Town of Groton v. Town of Strafford

• Decision Date: 07 May 1963
• Docket Number: No. 278,278
• Parties: TOWN OF GROTON v. TOWN OF STRAFFORD.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 464

192 A.2d 464

123 Vt. 432

TOWN OF GROTON v. TOWN OF STRAFFORD.

No. 278.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

May 7, 1963.

Reargument Denied June 11, 1963.

Arthur L. Graves, St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff.

Wilson, Keyser & Otterman, Chelses, for defendant.

Before HULBURD, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY and SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, Justice.

This is a civil action brought by the plaintiff Town of Groton against the defendant, Town of Strafford, under the provisions of 33 V.S.A. § 782 in the Caledonia Municipal Court. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and defendant has brought its appeal here from the denial of its motions for a verdict directed in its favor, and for a verdict to be directed in its favor notwithstanding the verdict of the jury.

The statute relied upon, 33 V.S.A. § 782, is quoted below:

'An overseer of a town furnishing relief to a poor person shall within thirty days from the time of first providing relief give notice to the overseer of the town in this state wherein such poor person has his settlement, or to the commissioner, if such poor person is a state charge. The overseer so notified shall then furnish such poor person relief or remove him to the town in this state where he has his settlement, provided that such removal will work no undue hardship on such poor person or his family. If such overseer so notified fails within sixty days after receipt of such notice to remove such poor person or furnish him relief, the town furnishing such relief may recover therefor in an action on this statute against the town wherein such poor person has his settlement. A single action may be brought for all assistance so furnished without other or further notice. The failure of an overseer to reply within fifteen days to notice as provided in this section, shall be deemed prima facie evidence that the poor person in question had a settlement in said town.'

The relief sought by the plaintiff town in its action against the defendant is reimbursement for a bill for medical services paid by Groton to a Dr. Rowe, and which services were rendered to a William Pickett and his family who, at the time of such services, were residing in the Town of Groton. Groton's contention is that the Pickett family has its pauper settlement in the defendant Town of Strafford at the time such relief was furnished and that Groton is entitled to such reimbursement from Strafford by reason of the statute.

The error claimed by Strafford in the lower court's denial of its request for a directed verdict is briefed upon two grounds. The first claim of error is that notices sent by Groton to Strafford relative to the relief furnished were not legal notices under the relevant statutes which would entitle Groton to a statutory right of action against Strafford.

In considering the first question presented upon the matter of the construction of the agreement between Groton and Dr. Rowe and on proper notices, we are mindful of the fact that furnishing relief to poor persons in need of assistance by municipalities is governed by statute. There are no common-law liabilities and there are no equities between towns in respect to caring for and supporting paupers. The whole matter is purely statutory and where the statute imposes no liability, there is none. See 41 Am.Jur. Paupers, p. 709.

The general duty of towns in respect to furnishing relief to poor persons is found in 33 V.S.A. § 702: 'A town shall relieve poor persons residing or found therein as provided in this chapter.'

This general duty of a town to furnish relief, however, is limited by the statute when such relief consists in the furnishing of medical care, which is the kind of relief claimed to have been furnished by the plaintiff in the instant case. 'No town shall be liable for medical, surgical or hospital care furnished a poor person except by agreement with the overseer or with a selectman of the town wherein the poor person resides or is found at the time such relief is required; provided, that recovery may be had for necessary emergency care until such time as it is reasonably possible to get an approval for relief from such overseer or selectman. However, this section shall not apply to such care furnished transient persons.' 33 V.S.A. § 703. The provisions of the above section relating to emergency care, and the care furnished to transient persons are not material to the question here presented.

It is now necessary to review the pertinent evidence in the case before us. This, of course, we must do in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the prevailing party below. No problem is presented in this respect as the evidence here before us is virtually undisputed, with the defendant having presented no evidence on its part after the plaintiff rested its case.

William Pickett had lived in Strafford for more than three years, supporting himself and his family prior to May, 1956, when the family moved to Groton. While the family had received various forms of state aid, due to the fact that Mr. Pickett was an invalid and there were minor children in the family, such payments did not prevent the acquisition of a settlement by virtue of 33 V.S.A. § 747. There is no dispute that the Pickett family had acquired a pauper settlement in Strafford under 33 V.S.A. § 782 prior to moving to Groton.

Soon after the Pickett family moved to Groton, in June, 1956, Mrs. Pickett received care at the Barre City Hospital during childbirth. The bill for such care was sent to Groton and by Groton to Strafford. Strafford paid the bill on Aug. 1, 1956.

After moving to Groton, the Pickett family commenced receiving medical care from Dr. Harry M. Rowe of Wells River, Vt. For a time, Dr. Rowe's bills were paid, in part at least, by the Picketts. In 1957, however, the selectmen of Groton were informed by an agent of the Department of Public Welfare, as well as by the Doctor, that relief was required by the Pickett family to pay for such medical care.

As a result of conferences between Dr. Rowe and the selectmen of Groton, the following letter was written by the selectmen, through Bert Bailey, a member of the Board, to Dr. Rowe:

'Dr. Harry Rowe, M.D. Oct. 1, 1957. 'Dear Sir: In reply to your tel. call about medical care for the William Pickett family, and also according to our conversation with Mr. Morse and myself, we feel that the Pickett family have a residence in the Town of Strafford, Vt. and that they will pay their bills.

'However, the Social Welfare had requested that Mrs. Pickett have medical treatments, and we will pay the same if the Town of Strafford is not liable.

'Yours truly,

'Bert Bailey'

Various members of the Pickett family were treated by Dr. Rowe between January, 1958 and 1960. While Dr. Rowe had...