Case Title: Miller v. White

Citation: 167 Vt. 45, 702 A.2d 392

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-08-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Miller v. White  (96-310); 167 Vt. 45; 702 A.2d 392

[Filed 08-Aug-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 96-310

Wade Miller                                  Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Franklin Superior Court

Steven White                                 March Term, 1997

Linda Levitt, J.

       Joshua B. Lobe of Lobe & Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

       R. Allan Paul and Mark G. Hall of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc.,
  Burlington, for defendant-appellee

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Defendant and plaintiff are both residents of Vermont. 
  They planned a short car trip to Quebec, Canada and, while in Quebec, were
  involved in a single-car accident in an automobile owned and operated by
  defendant and registered in Vermont.  Plaintiff was injured in the accident
  and claims defendant's negligence caused the accident and his injuries.
  Defendant seeks interlocutory review of the trial court's decision to apply
  Vermont law to this personal injury action.  We affirm.

       On the evening of April 16, 1994, plaintiff Wade Miller, defendant
  Steven White and a group of friends decided to drive from Burlington,
  Vermont to the Frontier Bar in the Province of Quebec, Canada, where the
  lower drinking age allowed them to drink legally.  The group arrived at the
  bar at approximately 10 p.m. and stayed until about 3 a.m.  While still in
  Canada and shortly after leaving the bar, defendant drove off the side of
  the road.  As a result of the accident, plaintiff, who was a passenger in
  defendant's car, suffered head injuries and fractured vertebrae.  He claims
  medical bills of $11,717, lost wages of $2,727, and other damages.

 

  Another passenger in the car brought suit against defendant in federal
  court.(FN1)

       Plaintiff claimed that the action should be governed by Vermont law,
  which has retained a fault-based compensation system for automobile
  negligence claims.  Defendant argued that the action should be governed by
  Quebec law, which provides a no-fault compensation system for injuries
  arising from automobile accidents and prohibits personal injury lawsuits. 
  Consistent with that argument, defendant moved to dismiss on the basis that
  the suit is prohibited by Quebec law.  Because no material facts were in
  dispute, both parties sought summary judgment on the choice-of-law issue. 
  The trial court, applying the "most significant relationship" test from the
  Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, concluded that Vermont law should
  govern.  On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court should have
  applied the rule of lex loci delicti to resolve the choice-of-law question. 
  In the alternative, defendant contends that Quebec has a more significant
  relationship to this case than Vermont, and that Quebec law should govern.

       While this case was on appeal, we adopted the Restatement (Second) of
  Conflict of Laws test and held that the "choice of law in a tort action
  that implicates states or countries beyond Vermont will be determined by
  which state or country has the most significant relationship to the
  occurrence and the parties."  Amiot v. Ames, ___ Vt. ___, ___,