Case Title: Long v. L'Esperance

Citation: 166 Vt. 566, 701 A.2d 1048

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Long v. L'Esperance  (96-082); 166 Vt. 566; 701 A.2d 1048

[Filed 11-Jul-1997]

       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. 96-082

David Long                                   Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Windham Superior Court

Thomas L'Esperance                           January Term, 1997

Robert Grussing III, J.

       Edmund A. Burke, Putney, for plaintiff-appellant

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Timothy B. Tomasi, Assistant
  Attorney General, and Renee Markus Hodin, Special Assistant Attorney
  General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee

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

       JOHNSON, J.   Following his arrest by defendant Trooper L'Esperance on
  the charge of disorderly conduct, see 13 V.S.A. § 1026, plaintiff brought
  this action alleging unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery,
  and intentional infliction of emotional distress.(FN1)  The case went to
  trial, and after plaintiff rested, defendant moved for judgment as a matter
  of law pursuant to V.R.C.P. 50(a).  The court granted the motion as to all
  claims, holding that based on the evidence presented, defendant had
  probable cause to arrest plaintiff for the offense of disorderly conduct,
  and thus was protected from suit by the doctrine of official immunity.
  Plaintiff appealed.  We conclude that plaintiff presented sufficient
  evidence to support his claim that defendant arrested him without probable
  cause, and accordingly, reverse.

 

       We review de novo the court's decision granting defendant judgment as
  a matter of law,(FN2) viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
  plaintiff, and excluding any modifying evidence.  See Grann v. Green
  Mountain Racing Corp., 150 Vt. 232, 233, 551 A.2d 1202, 1203 (1988). 
  Judgment as a matter of law is proper only if no evidence exists fairly and
  reasonably supporting plaintiff's claim.  Smith v. Gainer, 153 Vt. 442,
  445, 571 A.2d 70, 71 (1990).  We have described this as "an exacting
  standard," Grann, 150 Vt. at 233, 551 A.2d  at 1203; if the evidence tends
  to support plaintiff's claim in any fashion, plaintiff is entitled to a
  jury determination.  South Burlington Sch. Dist. v. Calcagni, 138 Vt. 33,
  40,