Case Title: Zukatis v. Perry

Citation: 165 Vt 298, 682 A.2d 964

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Zukatis v. Perry  (94-593); 165 Vt 298; 682 A.2d 964

[Opinion Filed 12-Jul-1996]


       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. 94-593


Cory J. Zukatis, b/n/f Sheri E.              Supreme Court
Zukatis, Sheri E. Zukatis and
Michael Zukatis                              On Appeal from
                                             Windham Superior Court
     v.
                                             March Term, 1996
Michael G. Perry


Richard W. Norton, J.

       Thomas W. Costello, John C. Mabie and Joel T. Faxon of Thomas W.
  Costello, P.C., Brattleboro, for plaintiffs-appellants

       Robert G. Cain and William D. Riley of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc.,
  Burlington, for  defendant-appellee

       Todd S. Brilliant and Stephen S. Ostrach, New England Legal
  Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts, for amici curiae Vermont Farm Bureau and
  Vermont Horse Council


       PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       MORSE, J.   Plaintiffs appeal from summary judgment granted to
  defendant under V.R.C.P. 56(b) on counts of negligence and "negligent
  undertaking," and from dismissal under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) of a claim of
  "attractive nuisance."  They argue that the trial court erred in concluding
  that (1) a landowner owes no duty of care to a trespassing child, and (2)
  that the facts did not support a claim of negligent undertaking. 

       As noted above, the trial court dismissed the claim of attractive
  nuisance on the pleadings but granted summary judgment on the counts of
  negligence and negligent undertaking.  Summary judgment is appropriate only
  where, taking the allegations made by the nonmoving party as true, there
  are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to
  judgment as a matter of law.  Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., __ Vt. __, __,