Case Title: Myers v. Langlois

Citation: 168 Vt. 432, 721 A.2d 129

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Myers v. Langlois  (97-399); 168 Vt. 432; 721 A.2d 129

[Filed 23-Oct-1998]

       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. 97-399

Gilbert Myers, Administrator                  Supreme Court
Estates of Adrienne Belanger Hebert,
Pauline Gauthier and Patricia Giles
                                              On Appeal from
     v.                                       Chittenden Superior Court

Marcy Langlois and                            June Term, 1998
Emilien Bergeron

Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

       John T. Leddy of McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan, Burlington, for
  Plaintiff-Appellant.

       Patricia S. Orr of Wilson, Powell & Lang, Burlington, for
  Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       SKOGLUND, J.  Plaintiff Gilbert Meyers, administrator of the estates
  of Adrienne Belanger Hebert, Pauline Gauthier,and Patricia Giles
  (decedents), appeals the superior court's grant of defendant Emilien
  Bergeron's summary judgment motion, which  thereby dismissed the three
  survival and wrongful death actions against defendant Bergeron.(FN1)
  Plaintiff contends the court erred by concluding that, because Quebec law
  applied to the actions against defendant Bergeron, plaintiff was limited to
  recovering benefits paid under Quebec law and was prohibited from bringing
  these actions in a Vermont court.  We affirm.

       Defendant Bergeron and the decedents were residents of the Province of
  Quebec.  On January 31, 1994, defendant Bergeron and the decedents left
  together from Clarenceville, Quebec, in defendant Bergeron's automobile. 
  They intended to play bingo in  Alburg, Vermont,

 

  and then return to their homes in Clarenceville later that evening.  While
  driving in Alburg, defendant Bergeron allegedly made an improper left turn
  off Route 2.  The automobile he was driving, and in which the decedents
  were passengers, was then struck by defendant Marcy Langlois's automobile. 
  Defendant Langlois, a Vermont resident, was allegedly travelling at an
  excessive rate of speed.  The decedents died of their injuries either
  immediately upon impact or soon thereafter.  Two of the decedents' estates
  incurred medical bills for services provided  by Vermont hospitals.  Each
  of the decedents' next of kin applied  for and received benefits available
  under the law of  Quebec.

       Plaintiff subsequently commenced separate survival and wrongful death
  actions, pursuant to 14 V.S.A. §§ 1451-1492, against defendants Bergeron
  and Langlois.  The actions were consolidated for discovery.  After
  discovery was partially complete, defendant Bergeron moved for summary
  judgment contending that he should be dismissed from the actions. Defendant
  Bergeron first argued that, based on Vermont's  choice-of-law principles,
  Quebec law applied.  He further asserted that plaintiff was precluded from
  maintaining the actions against him because the benefits provided to the
  decedents' next of kin under Quebec's no-fault compensation system for
  automobile accidents comprised plaintiff's exclusive  remedy.  In
  opposition, plaintiff claimed that the actions were governed by Vermont
  law, which has retained a fault-based compensation system for negligence
  claims related to automobile accidents.  The court agreed with defendant
  Bergeron's arguments,  granted summary judgment in his favor, and dismissed
  him from the case.  This appeal followed.

       When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard
  as the trial court. See Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., 165 Vt. 306, 309,