Case Title: Fritzeen v. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Citation: 170 Vt. 632, 751 A.2d 293

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Fritzeen v. Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. (98-554); 170 Vt. 632; 
751 A.2d 293

[File 06-Apr-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-554

                             JANUARY TERM, 2000

Eric and Louise Fritzeen, 	       }	APPEALED FROM:
William and Constance Coates	       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc.,    }
James Tyler Hart	               }	DOCKET NO. S1775-96CnC	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs Eric and Louise Fritzeen, et al., appeal a Chittenden
  Superior Court summary  judgment dismissal of their negligence and breach
  of contract lawsuit against defendants Trudell  Consulting Engineers, Inc.,
  et al.  The court concluded that Trudell's engineering work was not a 
  factor in the decision of the Water Resources Board to reverse the grant of
  a wastewater permit, and  thus Trudell's conduct could not be a proximate
  cause of the Fritzeens' alleged damages.  We believe  that the court
  misconstrued the Board's decision and that whether Trudell's conduct was a
  proximate  cause of the alleged harm is a genuine issue of material fact. 
  Accordingly, we reverse.

                                  I.  Facts

       The factual and procedural history of this case is long and
  complicated.  In 1991, the Fritzeens  acquired a thirty-four acre parcel of
  land in Colchester from Roger Villemaire with the intent to  develop it
  into a multi-unit condominium project.  Villemaire had secured a wastewater
  permit from  the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) for a mound septic
  system, designed by Trudell, for a nine  unit project.  However, this
  permit was conditioned upon obtaining an easement from a neighbor.  The
  Fritzeens, after purchasing the parcel from Villemaire, were unable to
  acquire the easement.  They hired Trudell to design a new on-site septic
  system, rather than a mound system, to obtain an  ANR permit.  According to
  the Fritzeens, Trudell assured them that its design was the only viable 
  plan and actively discouraged consideration of any alternative septic
  sites.  This site was near the  property of neighbors, the DesLauriers. 
  With the help of legal counsel, the Fritzeens obtained a  permit.  However,
  the DesLauriers opposed it and filed an out-of-time revocation petition
  with the  Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 

       A two-day adversarial hearing was held before the DEC.  The Fritzeens
  and the DesLauriers were  represented by counsel.  Defendant James Hart and
  DEC Assistant Regional Engineer Marsha 

 

  Thompson testified at the hearing.  In July 1993, the DEC Commissioner,
  referring often to Hart and  Thompson's testimony, denied the neighbors'
  revocation petition.  The Commissioner concluded that  the DesLauriers did
  not produce sufficient evidence on any of their five appellate issues, and
  thus  could not establish that the permit failed to comply with the
  Environmental Protection Rules (EPRs)  or that the Fritzeens provided false
  or misleading information in their application to the DEC.

       The DesLauriers then appealed to the Water Resources Board (Board). 
  Again, both the Fritzeens  and the DesLauriers were represented by counsel,
  though the Fritzeens' attorney was not the same  attorney who had
  represented them before the ANR and the DEC.  In June 1994, the Board
  reversed  the Commissioner's decision.(FN1)  The Fritzeens, through a third
  attorney, subsequently filed  motions to correct the Board's decision and
  to supplement the record of appeal.  Specifically, these  motions argued
  that important evidence, at least some of which includes Trudell's work,
  was not  included in the record before the Board when it rendered its
  decision.  In September 1994, the Board  denied the Fritzeens' motions. 

       The Fritzeens subsequently retained another engineering firm to design
  an alternative system with  different septic sites on the parcel.  This
  alternative plan was approved by the ANR without objection  from the
  DesLauriers, and installed. 

       The Fritzeens then brought this lawsuit in superior court alleging
  negligence and breach of contract  against Trudell, claiming as damages the
  costs of subsequent design and construction of a new  wastewater system, as
  well as lost profits.  After discovery by both sides, Trudell moved for 
  summary judgment, arguing that (1) the Fritzeens' predecessor attorneys
  were negligent in handling  the proceedings before the Board and this
  negligence constituted an efficient intervening cause of  the Fritzeens'
  damages; (2) the Fritzeens' predecessor attorneys' alleged negligence was
  imputable  to the Fritzeens and that such imputed negligence exceeded that
  of Trudell; and (3) the Fritzeens 

 

  assumed the risk of a successful revocation action by the DesLauriers when
  they purchased the  property and authorized a septic design different from
  the one previously done by Trudell for  Villemaire.

       The court granted Trudell's summary judgment motion, concluding that
  the only reasonable  conclusion, based upon the evidence, was that
  Trudell's conduct was not the proximate cause of the  Fritzeens' damages. 
  This appeal followed. 

                               II.  Discussion

       We review a grant of summary judgment with the same standard as the
  trial court.  See In re  Margaret Susan P., __ Vt. __, __,