Case Title: Gerish v. Savard

Citation: 169 Vt. 468, 739 A.2d 1195

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-07-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Gerrish v. Savard (98-103); 169 Vt. 468; 739 A.2d 1195

[Filed 23-Jul-1999]

       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. 98-103

Ralph I. Gerrish	                         Supreme Court

	                                         On Appeal from
     v.		                                 Washington Superior Court

Paul Savard	                                 January Term, 1999

Matthew I. Katz, J.

       L. Brooke Dingledine of Valsangiacomo, Detora & McQuesten, P.C.,
  Barre, for  Plaintiff-Appellant.

       Douglas D. Le Brun and Elizabeth H. Miller of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew,
  P.C., Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee.

       John L. Kellner and Kevin E. Brown of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
  Middlebury, for Amicus Curiae Vermont State Labor Council, AFL-CIO.

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

       JOHNSON, J.   This appeal arises out of a personal injury action in
  which plaintiff  alleged that he was injured when his employer negligently
  rigged a crane, causing a cable to snap  and a piece of granite to fall on
  plaintiff.  Plaintiff argues that it was error for the trial court to 
  grant summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of material fact as
  to whether  defendant, who was the president and owner of the granite
  company at which plaintiff worked,  was acting as an employer or a
  co-employee when the incident occurred.  Because plaintiff has  not alleged
  facts showing that defendant acted outside the scope of his duty as an
  employer, we 

 

  affirm.

       To warrant a grant of summary judgment, there must be no genuine
  issues of material  fact and the moving party must be entitled to judgment
  as a matter of law.  See Mello v. Cohen,  ___ Vt. ___, ___,