Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Frank Driscoll was running along East Shore Road in Isle La Motte when he was struck by a trailer being pulled by a truck driven by Benjamin Wright, an employee of Wright Cut and Clean, LLC. Driscoll was running on the left side of the road, facing traffic, while Wright was driving in the same direction on the right side. As Wright's truck approached, Driscoll moved to the left edge of the road but was struck by the trailer when he moved back towards the center. Driscoll was unconscious when police arrived and had no memory of the accident.Driscoll sued Wright for negligence and Wright Cut and Clean for vicarious liability and direct negligence in hiring, training, and supervising Wright. The Superior Court, Grand Isle Unit, Civil Division, bifurcated the claims and held a jury trial on the negligence claim. Driscoll's expert, Dr. Jerry Ogden, testified about the dimensions of the trailer and the truck's speed but could not establish Driscoll's position before the impact or a clear causative link between Wright's actions and Driscoll's injuries. The court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants, concluding that Driscoll failed to establish causation.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Driscoll did not provide sufficient evidence of causation, as his expert could not definitively link Wright's actions to the injury. The court emphasized that without clear evidence showing that Wright's alleged negligence caused the injury, the claim could not proceed. Consequently, the judgment in favor of Wright and Wright Cut and Clean was affirmed, and the direct negligence claim against Wright Cut and Clean was also dismissed due to the lack of an underlying tort by Wright. View "Driscoll v. Wright Cut and Clean, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Miriam Lowell and Seth Healey, challenged the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) after being investigated for child abuse and neglect. DCF substantiated the allegations and notified the plaintiffs, who then requested an administrative review. The review process was delayed, and the plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit claiming the process violated their due process rights. The federal court denied their injunction request, and the plaintiffs later filed a similar complaint in state court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and mandamus under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75.The Superior Court, Washington Unit, Civil Division, dismissed the complaint, assuming the plaintiffs had a protected liberty interest but finding the administrative review process constitutionally sufficient. The court noted that the plaintiffs' claims of potential procedural violations were speculative and not reviewable. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the administrative review process did not provide adequate due process protections.The Vermont Supreme Court dismissed Lowell's claims as moot because the administrative reviewer overturned the substantiation against her, providing her with no further relief. For Healey, the court assumed a protected liberty interest but found the administrative review process constitutionally adequate under the Mathews v. Eldridge test. The court noted that the process provided sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard, with a neutral arbiter and the ability to present evidence. The court emphasized the importance of DCF's interest in protecting children and the availability of a prompt post-deprivation hearing before the Human Services Board, which offers more extensive procedural protections. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Healey's complaint, concluding that the administrative review process met due process requirements. View "Lowell v. Department for Children and Families" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs own a 325-acre property in Tunbridge, Vermont, crossed by two legal trails. The Town of Tunbridge converted these trails from Class 4 roads in 1987. In 2021, the Town's selectboard revised the town plan to potentially expand trail use, including bicycling. Plaintiffs opposed this and claimed exclusive authority over trail maintenance on their property. In 2022, the selectboard adopted a policy allowing private individuals to apply for permission to maintain the trails, prompting plaintiffs to seek a declaratory judgment that the Town lacked such authority.The Superior Court, Orange Unit, Civil Division, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint as unripe, stating there was no justiciable controversy since no one had applied to maintain the trails. The court reiterated its stance from a prior action, emphasizing that discussions and policy adoptions did not constitute a concrete threat to plaintiffs' interests. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the new policy and procedure for trail maintenance created a sufficiently concrete controversy.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations demonstrated a sufficiently concrete threat of physical invasion and interference with their property rights. The Court held that the Town's formal assertion of authority to maintain and repair the trails, coupled with the procedure for private individuals to apply for permission, constituted an actual case or controversy. The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action to proceed. View "Echeverria v. Town of Tunbridge" on Justia Law

The defendant, Allan Washburn, appeals a criminal division order granting the State’s motion for civil forfeiture of his dog, Chad, based on findings of animal cruelty. On three separate occasions, Chad was found locked in the defendant’s car under conditions that included high temperatures, lack of water, and unsanitary environments. The dog was observed to be in distress, unable to move freely, and suffering from malnutrition and lack of exercise. These incidents led to the defendant being issued a criminal citation for animal cruelty and the subsequent seizure of Chad.The Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Criminal Division, reviewed the case and found by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had subjected Chad to cruelty. The court credited testimony from animal control officers and humane officers who described the poor conditions Chad was kept in, including high temperatures inside the car, lack of water, and inadequate nutrition. The court also noted that Chad required medical attention upon being taken to an animal center. Based on these findings, the court granted the State’s motion for civil forfeiture of Chad.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and addressed three main arguments raised by the defendant: the criminal division’s jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding, the sufficiency of evidence for animal cruelty, and the admissibility of lay witness testimony regarding the car’s internal temperature. The court found no error in the lower court’s jurisdiction or its findings of animal cruelty. The court also determined that any potential error in admitting the temperature estimate was harmless, as there was ample other evidence supporting the finding of cruelty. Consequently, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the civil forfeiture of Chad. View "State v. Washburn" on Justia Law

The claimant, a New Hampshire resident, was employed by a Vermont corporation with its principal place of business in New Hampshire. His job required traveling between New Hampshire and Vermont job sites. On September 13, 2022, while working at the New Hampshire facility, the claimant injured his hand. He filed for workers' compensation benefits with the employer's Vermont insurance carrier, which denied the claim due to lack of jurisdiction.The claimant appealed to the Vermont Department of Labor, arguing that his employment constituted "employment in this State" under 21 V.S.A. § 616(a). Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Commissioner granted summary judgment to the employer, concluding that the claimant did not meet the jurisdictional requirements because he was not hired in, did not reside in, and was not injured in Vermont. The Commissioner also found that the claimant worked more hours in New Hampshire than in Vermont and rejected the claimant's broader interpretation of jurisdiction under the statute.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The Court held that 21 V.S.A. § 616(a) requires an injury to occur in Vermont for jurisdiction to attach, with an exception for injuries outside the state if the worker was hired in Vermont. The Court found that the claimant did not meet these criteria. The Court also noted that the claimant's proposed interpretation would lead to absurd results, potentially extending Vermont's workers' compensation jurisdiction nationwide based on corporate domicile alone. The Court concluded that the Commissioner’s interpretation was consistent with legislative intent and precedent, and thus, Vermont lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claimant’s workers' compensation claim. View "Burnett v. Home Improvement Company of Vermont" on Justia Law

This case involves two consolidated appeals from Northwestern Medical Center and Rutland Regional Medical Center against the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB). The GMCB had approved the proposed budgets of both medical centers for the fiscal year 2024, but with certain conditions. The medical centers challenged the GMCB's imposition of budgetary conditions that capped increases to rates charged to commercial payers. However, the medical centers had not properly raised their claims with the GMCB, leaving them unpreserved for review.The GMCB is an independent board that regulates the health care industry in Vermont. It reviews and establishes hospital budgets annually, with the aim of reducing the per-capita rate of growth in expenditures for health services in Vermont across all payers. The GMCB had released its established benchmarks for the 2024 fiscal year budget submissions, which included a benchmark that limited a hospital’s growth of net patient revenue/fixed prospective payment (NPR/FPP) to 8.6%, effectively capping increases to NPR/FPP growth by that amount. It also included a benchmark for commercial rate increases which provided that the GMCB would “also review and may adjust requested hospital commercial rate increases.”The GMCB approved the budgets of Northwestern and Rutland Regional, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included a cap on increases to commercial rates. However, neither Northwestern nor Rutland Regional had raised their claims with the GMCB, leaving them unpreserved for review.On appeal, Northwestern and Rutland Regional argued that the GMCB deprived them of due process by failing to provide adequate notice that it would impose the Commercial Rate Cap Conditions on their proposed budgets. They also claimed that the GMCB had no authority to impose the Commercial Rate Cap Conditions because the conditions lacked a factual basis and contradicted the GMCB’s initial approval of their proposed budgets. However, the Vermont Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of these claims because they were not preserved for review. The court noted that Northwestern and Rutland Regional had several opportunities to raise their claims with the GMCB before the GMCB issued its final budget decisions, but they failed to do so. Therefore, the court affirmed the decisions of the GMCB. View "In re Northwestern Medical Center Fiscal Year 2024" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Damon Graham and Isiwat Adekoya over the primary parental rights and responsibilities (PRR) and parent-child contact (PCC) schedule for their child. The couple met in February 2021 and had a child in October 2021. After a strained relationship and a series of altercations, Adekoya moved to Texas with the child. Graham filed a parentage complaint in February 2022, and the parties agreed to a temporary PCC schedule of alternating two-week increments. The family court approved this arrangement. However, Graham appealed the family court's decision, arguing that it allowed Adekoya to control his PCC time with the child and that the provision requiring renegotiation of PCC as the child reached school age was premised on Adekoya's decision to enroll the child in preschool.The family court had awarded Adekoya primary PRR and set forth a PCC schedule. It found that the alternating biweekly schedule was in the child's best interests but recognized that maintaining this schedule indefinitely was not feasible due to the considerable physical distance separating the parents. The court ordered that the current PCC schedule would continue until the child entered preschool, at which point the schedule would automatically change. Graham argued that this decision gave Adekoya unilateral control over when the change in PCC would occur.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the family court's decision. It found that the family court did not suggest that Adekoya could dictate how Graham spends his PCC time with the child or control the child's daily routine or Graham's choice of childcare. The court also found that the family court had an evidentiary basis to conclude that the child's entrance to a certified preschool program was a proper future point for the parties to reconsider the PCC schedule. The court disagreed with Graham's claim that the family court improperly ruled on a future PCC schedule, stating that the language of the PCC order expressly left that task to a future court should the parties fail to agree on a PCC arrangement once the child is in preschool, turns four years old, or alternatively, enters kindergarten. View "Graham v. Adekoya" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident involving Michael Miller, a white Correctional Security Operations Supervisor at Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility (CRCF), and a black coworker. Miller asked the coworker if the food he was heating in the microwave was fried chicken, a comment the coworker perceived as racially discriminatory. Following an investigation, the State of Vermont terminated Miller's employment, citing violations of several personnel policies and work rules, including allegations of racial discrimination and harassment.The Vermont Labor Relations Board, however, reversed the State's decision. It found that while Miller's comments were inappropriate and unprofessional, they did not constitute racial discrimination or harassment as defined by the applicable personnel policies. The Board also found that the State failed to prove that Miller was untruthful during the investigation. Consequently, the Board reduced Miller's penalty to a twenty-day suspension.The State appealed the Board's decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the Board misinterpreted the meaning of racial discrimination and harassment in the personnel policies. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board's interpretation of the policies was within its discretion and was supported by analogous definitions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court also noted that the State could amend the language of the policies to more clearly define what constitutes racial discrimination or harassment. View "In re Grievance of Miller" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by the Department of Corrections (DOC) against a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff P. Mark Potanas under the State Employee Whistleblower Act. Potanas, a former superintendent of Southern State Correctional Facility (SSCF), claimed that the DOC fired him in retaliation for his whistleblowing activities. These activities included notifying the state about potential savings on a building renovation project and advocating for more mental health staff at SSCF. The DOC argued that Potanas did not engage in any "protected activity" under the Act, and thus, the trial court should have granted its request for judgment as a matter of law.The trial court denied the DOC's motion, finding that Potanas's report of potential waste and his complaints about mental health staffing were sufficient to meet the definition of "protected activity" under the Act. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Potanas, leading to the DOC's appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling, agreeing with the DOC that Potanas did not engage in protected activity under the Whistleblower Act. The court held that the Act does not encompass reports about the possibility of future waste and that reporting on a known problem or disagreeing about how to resolve a known problem is not protected activity. The court remanded the case to the trial court to vacate the jury’s verdict and enter judgment for the DOC. View "Potanas v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves RSD Leasing, Inc., a Vermont-based corporation that leases trucks to commercial operators. Between 2008 and 2014, RSD purchased forty trucks manufactured by Navistar International Corp. and Navistar, Inc. from a nonparty dealer. These trucks were equipped with an emission-control system known as an exhaust gas recirculation system. RSD alleged that the system caused the trucks to lose power, break down, and damage other engine components. RSD leased the trucks to other entities for four-to-six-year terms and intended to sell them at the end of the lease term. RSD filed a complaint against Navistar alleging violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), among other claims.In the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, Navistar moved for summary judgment on the VCPA claim, arguing that RSD is not a “consumer” under the VCPA and is therefore barred from recovery. The district court granted summary judgment on the VCPA claim, reasoning that RSD did not qualify as a consumer under the VCPA because it purchased the trucks for resale in the ordinary course of its business. RSD appealed to the Second Circuit, which certified the question of whether RSD qualified as a consumer under the VCPA to the Vermont Supreme Court.The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that RSD is not a consumer under the VCPA. The court found that RSD's intent at the time it purchased the trucks was to lease them out and, after each lease term expired, sell them. The court held that the trucks were purchased for resale in the ordinary course of RSD’s business. Therefore, RSD did not qualify as a consumer under the VCPA. The court answered the certified question from the Second Circuit in the negative. View "RSD Leasing, Inc. v. Navistar International Corporation and Navistar, Inc." on Justia Law