Title: Harris v. Carbonneau

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Harris v. Charbonneau  (94-592); 165 Vt 433; 685 A.2d 296

[Opinion Filed 30-Aug-1996]

       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. 94-592


Bonnie Harris and                                 Supreme Court
Ferris K. O'Connell
                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Orleans Superior Court

Winston Carbonneau, James G.                      April Term, 1996
Murphy and State of Vermont


James L. Morse, J., Specially Assigned

       Michael Palmer of Palmer Legal Services, Middlebury, for
  plaintiffs-appellants

       Robert B. Chimileski, Troy, for defendants-appellees Carbonneau and
  Murphy

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Robert W. Gagnon, Senior
  Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee State of
  Vermont


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, and Johnson, JJ.



       GIBSON, J.   Plaintiffs Bonnie Harris and Ferris O'Connell appeal from
  a verdict in defendants' favor following a jury trial on plaintiffs' claims
  of civil trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
  negligence.  Plaintiffs contend that the superior court erred in denying
  their motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the
  verdict,(FN1) and that the superior court should have provided a separate
  jury instruction on invasion of privacy.  We affirm.

       Viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
  excluding the effect of modifying evidence, see Silva v. Stevens, 156 Vt.
  94, 101, 589 A.2d 852, 856 (1991), the record provides the following facts. 
  On the evening of December 29, 1988, defendant

 

  Lieutenant Winston Carbonneau, an Orleans County deputy sheriff, went to
  Harris's house in Newport to serve a summons and complaint from superior
  court on O'Connell.  O'Connell was asleep on the couch when Carbonneau
  knocked on the storm door and announced himself.  At the time of the visit,
  Harris and O'Connell were both totally disabled.  Harris, who was in a
  wheelchair, came to the door, and without opening it, asked who it was. 
  Carbonneau identified himself, and Harris opened the inside door and tried
  unsuccessfully to open the storm door. Carbonneau assisted her in opening
  the storm door, at which point Harris backed up her wheelchair and
  Carbonneau stepped inside.

       Once inside the house, Carbonneau said he had some papers for Ferris
  O'Connell and asked Harris if she were Ferris O'Connell.  When Harris asked
  what kind of papers they were, Carbonneau repeated that they were for
  Ferris O'Connell, and asked if the man he saw seated on the couch was
  Ferris O'Connell.  When Harris again asked what kind of papers they were
  and whether she could take them, Carbonneau asked the man whether he was
  Ferris O'Connell. The man nodded and Carbonneau asked O'Connell if he
  wanted the papers brought over to him. Harris backed up her wheelchair so
  Carbonneau could walk past her to the couch, and O'Connell stood up. 
  Carbonneau said, "Ferris O'Connell, these papers are a summons and
  complaint." O'Connell thereupon became angry, swore at Carbonneau, and
  ordered him to get out of the house.  Carbonneau attempted to hand the
  papers to O'Connell, who would not take them. Carbonneau then dropped the
  papers on the floor and told O'Connell that he had been served. As
  Carbonneau was leaving, O'Connell hurled a number of objects after him,
  including several pillows, his temporary cast and one of his aluminum
  crutches.

       At trial, plaintiffs' testimony contradicted Carbonneau.  Harris
  testified that Carbonneau never announced who he was, but said merely,
  "Small Claims Court" when he knocked. According to Harris, when she opened
  the inside door, Carbonneau opened the outside door and barged into the
  house uninvited.  Harris testified that she tried to explain O'Connell's
  disabled condition to Carbonneau, but Carbonneau ignored her requests to
  serve the papers on her or on

 

  O'Connell's lawyer, or to call O'Connell's doctor.  Rather, Carbonneau
  insisted on confronting O'Connell with the papers.  O'Connell testified
  that he became angry when Carbonneau announced that he had a writ of
  attachment from superior court because O'Connell had thought from
  Carbonneau's initial announcement, that the papers were from small claims
  court. Plaintiffs insisted that O'Connell never threw a crutch.  They
  testified that, as Carbonneau was opening the door to leave, one of
  Harris's cats started for the door.  When Harris bent over to grab the cat,
  she was struck in the side of the head by the door, which cut her cheek and
  severely damaged her mouth and bridgework.

       Plaintiffs sued Carbonneau for trespass, intentional infliction of
  emotional distress, assault and battery,(FN2) and negligence.  In addition,
  plaintiffs alleged that, "[b]y entering plaintiffs' residence without
  permission and against plaintiffs' wishes, defendant Carbonneau wrongfully
  invaded plaintiffs' privacy."

       At the close of the evidence, plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict
  on the issue of trespass, claiming there was no evidence that Carbonneau
  had an express or implied invitation to enter the home.  The court denied
  the motion.

       Plaintiffs requested a jury instruction for invasion of privacy that
  read, in relevant part, "Anyone who intrudes into the home of another
  without permission has invaded the privacy of the latter person and is
  liable to that person for any damage proximately caused by that invasion of
  privacy."  The judge instructed the jury on trespass, intentional
  infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, but not on invasion of
  privacy.  The instruction on trespass stated, "The Plaintiffs must prove by
  a preponderance of the evidence . . . a lack of express or implied
  permission to either enter the home or to remain there if the initial entry
  was welcomed or invited."

       After the jury returned a verdict for defendants, plaintiffs' motion
  for judgment

 

  notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial was denied.

                                I.

       Plaintiffs first contend that they were entitled to a directed
  verdict, or to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, on their claim of
  trespass, because the evidence demonstrated that Carbonneau entered the
  house on his own initiative without invitation.

       A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict raises substantially
  the same legal questions as a motion for directed verdict and is treated in
  like manner.  Center v. Mad River Corp., 151 Vt. 408, 413, 561 A.2d 90, 93
  (1989).  If there is any evidence reasonably and fairly supporting the
  nonmoving party's claim, the motion should be denied and the case should go
  to the jury.  Lussier v. North Troy Engineering Co., 149 Vt. 486, 490,