Case Title: Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Barasch

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 91Ä340

                            DECEMBER TERM, 1991


Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.       }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          Rutland Superior Court
                                  }
                                  }
Norman Barasch                    }
and Suzanne Barasch               }          DOCKET NO. S0709Ä88RcC


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     This is a subrogation action brought by the insurer of a condominium
against invitees of the owner to recover sums paid to the owner as the
result of a fire allegedly resulting from the negligence of the invitees.
The action was brought against the owner's employee and the employee's adult
daughter.  The insurer appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of the
employee.  We affirm.

     Summary judgment is appropriate when, even if all allegations brought
by the nonmoving party that are supported by evidence are regarded as true,
there is no genuine issue of material fact.  Messier v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 154 Vt. 406, 409, 578 A.2d 98, 99Ä100 (1990).  Despite an adequate
opportunity for discovery, Aetna has failed to make any showing in support
of its assertions that the employee (the father) negligently caused the fire
or was responsible for the conduct of his daughter, who may have caused the
fire.  See Poplaski v. Lamphere, 152 Vt. 251, 254Ä55, 565 A.2d 1326, 1329
(1989) (in order to survive motion for summary judgment, party must make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of elements essential to the
case).  Neither the police report nor any other potential evidence suggests
that the father's actions directly caused the fire.

     Further, Aetna has failed to show that the father is responsible for
the actions of his adult daughter.  See Id. at 256, 565 A.2d  at 1329 ("to
recover in a negligence action, a plaintiff must first establish a legally
cognizable duty on the part of the defendant"; generally, there is no duty
to control the conduct of another to protect a third person from harm);
Britton v. Cann,