Case Title: Vella v. Hartford Vermont Acquisitions, Inc.

Citation: 176 Vt. 151, 2003 VT 108, 838 A.2d 126

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Vella v. Hartford Vermont Acquisitions, Inc. (2002-364); 176 Vt. 151;
838 A.2d 126

2003 VT 108

[Filed 21-Nov-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 108

                                No. 2002-364

  Charles E. Vella	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Windsor Superior Court

  Hartford Vermont Acquisitions, Inc.	         October Term, 2003

  Alan W. Cook, J.

  Tim A. Clark of DesMeules, Olmstead & Ostler, Norwich, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Wayne R. Young and Harold E. Eaton, Jr. of Eaton & Hayes, P.C., Woodstock,
    for Defendant-Appellee.

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

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Charles Vella, who suffered a
  work-related injury for which he collected workers' compensation benefits
  from his employer, appeals the superior court's order dismissing his tort
  suit against defendant Hartford Vermont Acquisitions, the owner of the
  commercial garage leased to his employer.  The trial court determined that
  defendant is a "statutory employer" under 21 V.S.A. § 601(3) and thus
  immune from the suit filed by plaintiff, whose exclusive remedy is his
  workers' compensation award.  Based on our conclusion that defendant is not
  a "statutory employer," we reverse the court's judgment and reinstate
  plaintiff's suit.

       ¶  2.  In reviewing the superior court's order dismissing plaintiff's
  suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we
  assume that plaintiff's factual allegations, and any reasonable inferences
  that may be drawn therefrom, are true. (FN1)  See Richards v. Town of
  Norwich, 169 Vt. 44, 48-49,