Case Title: Rochon v. State

Citation: 177 Vt. 144, 2004 VT 77, 862 A.2d 801

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rochon v. State (2003-316); 177 Vt. 144; 862 A.2d 801

2004 VT 77

[Filed 27-Aug-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 77

                                No. 2003-316

  Marcel Rochon and Raymond Rochon	         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Addison Superior Court

  State of Vermont	                         March Term, 2004

  Helen M. Toor, J.

  Peter F. Langrock, James W. Swift and Abby C. Moskovitz of Langrock Sperry
    & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Jennifer K. Reining and 
    Timothy B. Tomasi, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, 
    for Defendant-Appellee.	

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.   Plaintiffs appeal from a grant of summary
  judgment in favor of the State of Vermont in this suit for personal
  injuries caused by an accident with a police cruiser that was traveling to
  the scene of an emergency.  Plaintiffs contend that Vermont's emergency
  vehicle statute, 23 V.S.A. § 1015, requires a showing of negligence before
  imposing liability, not a showing of recklessness.  We reject plaintiffs'
  argument, and conclude that 23 V.S.A. § 1015 precludes an action in
  negligence and requires a showing of recklessness for injuries sustained in
  an accident with an emergency responder.  We therefore affirm.

       ¶  2.  Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting
  defendant summary judgment based on the court's conclusion that 23 V.S.A. §
  1015(c) requires a showing of recklessness.  When this Court reviews a
  grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the trial court. 
  Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc., 175Vt. 1, 2,