Case Title: Estate of Sumner

Citation: 162 Vt. 628, 649 A.2d 1034

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY_ORDER.93-170; 162 Vt. 628; 649 A.2d 1034

 [Filed:  29-Sep-1994]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-170

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1994


 Estate of Crystal Lee Sumner      }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          Addison Superior Court
                                   }
                                   }
 Vermont Department of Social      }
 and Rehabilitation Services       }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. S158-90Ac


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      Plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of a young girl who was
 sexually assaulted and murdered by her cousin while he was in the legal
 custody of defendant Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services,
 appeals from a superior court order granting summary judgment to defendant
 in plaintiff's negligence action against the Department.  On appeal,
 plaintiff challenges the court's rulings that: (1) its claim is barred by
 sovereign immunity, (2) the Department owed no duty of care to the decedent,
 and (3) even if such a duty did exist, the breach of the alleged duty was
 not the proximate cause of the decedent's injuries.  We affirm.

      In early 1988, thirteen-year-old Steven Buelow was found to be a "child
 in need of care or supervision," pursuant to 33 V.S.A. { 5502(a)(12)(C),
 based on an incident in which he refused to return home following an
 argument and subsequent altercation with his mother and stepfather.  By the
 time of the disposition hearing, Steven had returned home pursuant to a plan
 of reunification.  In its March 1988 disposition order, the juvenile court
 ordered that Steven be placed at home with his mother and stepfather, that
 his parent's retain legal guardianship, but that the Department assume legal
 custody of the boy.  In the last week of July 1988, Steven's parents moved
 from their home, and Steven went to live at the home of his step-father's
 sister, the mother of the decedent.  On August 2, 1988, Steven sexually
 assaulted and murdered his seven-year-old cousin, Crystal Sumner.

      Plaintiff's suit alleged that the Department was negligent in its
 supervision and placement of Steven and that it failed to exercise the duty
 of care it had to decedent and others with whom the Department knew or
 should have known that Steven was living.  In support of its claims,
 plaintiff alleged that the Department was made aware of problems with
 Steven's 2behavior, but did nothing to address those problems.  In addition,
 plaintiff alleged that the Department did nothing to seek a different
 placement even though it knew that Steven was unable to live with his mother
 because she had moved in with a relative who would not allow him to live

 

 there.  Plaintiff claims that the Department should have sought modification
 of the juvenile court order when it became aware that the placement had
 failed.

      In July 1991, the superior court denied the Department's motion to
 dismiss plaintiff's suit, stating that plaintiff should have an opportunity
 to produce evidence establishing that the Department knew or should have
 known that Steven was dangerous.  In January 1993, in response to the
 Department's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted an affidavit
 from the administrator of the estate of Crystal Sumner, the decedent's
 grandfather, which stated (1) the Department knew or should have known that
 Steven was not living with his parents, who were moving in with a relative;
 (2) the relative would not allow Steven to stay with them out of fear for
 her children's safety; and (3) the Department knew or should have known
 that Steven was engaging in high-risk behaviors, such as sexual activity,
 drinking, and getting into fights.  The superior court granted the
 Department's motion, ruling in defendant's favor on the issues of sovereign
 immunity, duty of care, and proximate cause.  We conclude that summary
 judgment was appropriate because a jury could not reasonably have found that
 the Department's actions or omissions were the proximate cause of the
 decedent's injuries.

      Proximate cause is the law's method of keeping the scope of liability
 for a defendant's negligence from extending by ever-expanding causal links.
 Roberts v. State, 147 Vt. 160, 163,