Case Title: McMurphy v. State

Citation: 171 Vt. 9, 757 A.2d 1043

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
McMurphy v. State (98-499); 171 Vt. 9; 757 A.2d 1043 

[Filed 02-Jun-2000]

       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. 98-499

Bonnie McMurphy, et al	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Rutland Superior Court

State of Vermont and	                         September Term, 1999
Town of Rutland

Alden T. Bryan, J.

James W. Runcie of Ouimette & Runcie, Vergennes, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Cathy Nelligan Norman and Scott A. 
  Whitted, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee 
  State of Vermont.

Joseph A. Farnham of McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan, Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellee Town of Rutland.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse, Johnson, Skoglund, JJ., and Gibson, J. (Ret.), 
          Specially Assigned

       MORSE, J.  In this wrongful death action following the death of their
  daughter in an  automobile accident, plaintiffs Bonnie McMurphy and James
  Hart appeal a summary judgment  ruling that defendants State of Vermont and
  Town of Rutland were immune from suit.  Plaintiffs  argue that, under the
  Tort Claims Act, the State waived its sovereign immunity, and, by
  purchasing  excess liability insurance, Rutland waived its municipal
  immunity up to $1,850,000.  Plaintiffs  argue, in the alternative, that
  Rutland is liable under the theory of breach of contract, a claim that is 
  not subject to immunity.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

       Plaintiffs are parents of Shannah Hart, who died in a motor vehicle
  accident in Rutland on  December 7, 1995.  The accident occurred at the
  intersection of Town Highway No. 1 (Post Road)  and U.S. Route 7.  The
  deceased, heading southbound on Post Road, drove through the intersection 
  and collided with a pickup truck traveling northbound on Route 7.  The
  State designed 

 

  and built the intersection, completing the work in 1981.  At that time, the
  State contracted with  Rutland to assume responsibility for maintaining the
  intersection.

       Plaintiffs individually and McMurphy, as administratrix of her
  daughter's estate, sued,  claiming that the State failed to properly design
  and construct the intersection and Rutland failed to  adequately maintain
  it.  Post Road and Route 7 intersect at a relatively narrow angle.  Post
  Road's  southbound lane curves sharply to the right, so that its end point,
  which is marked by a stop sign,  forms a "T" with Route 7.  Traffic
  traveling northbound from Route 7 onto Post Road bypasses this  "T" via a
  one-way exit lane, which routes traffic directly from the northbound lane
  of Route 7 onto  Post Road's northbound lane.  Plaintiffs believed that
  those traveling southbound on Post Road may  easily mistake this one-way,
  northbound exit ramp as a two-way continuation of Post Road, rather  than
  follow Post Road's sharp turn to the right to its end.  They alleged that
  the intersection was  negligently designed, constructed, and maintained,
  particularly in that it lacked the necessary and  appropriate warning
  signage. 

       The superior court granted the State's motion for summary judgment,
  finding no issues of  material fact with regard to whether it negligently
  failed to comply with design standards.  The court  similarly granted
  Rutland's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the town was immune 
  from suit under the doctrine of municipal immunity and was not liable under
  a third-party beneficiary  theory for breach of its contract with the State
  to maintain the intersection.  This appeal followed.

                           I.  Sovereign Immunity

                                A.  The State

       "Sovereign immunity protects the state from suit unless immunity is
  expressly waived by  statute."  LaShay v. Department of Social &
  Rehabilitation Servs., 160 Vt. 60, 67,