Title: Earle v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Earle v. State (98-254); 170 Vt. 183; 743 A.2d 1101

[Filed 24-Nov-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. 98-254

Mark G. Earle	                                      Supreme Court

	                                              On Appeal from
     v.		                                      Rutland Superior Court

State of Vermont	                              April Term, 1999

Richard W. Norton, J.

       Michael F. Hanley and Barney L. Brannen of Plante, Hanley & Brannen,
  P.C., White River Junction, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Mark J. Patane,
  Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Defendant-Appellee.

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

       JOHNSON, J.  Plaintiff Mark Earle appeals a ruling of the superior
  court granting  summary judgment to the Department of Social and
  Rehabilitative Services (SRS) on the grounds  that his negligence claims
  against SRS are barred by the statute of limitations.  Plaintiff sued  SRS
  claiming that SRS's negligence allowed him to be sexually abused by an
  older boy in SRS  custody.  Because the trial court erred in answering the
  threshold question of how to apply the  retroactivity provision of the
  statute of limitations for cases of childhood sexual abuse, we  reverse and
  remand.

 

       "[S]ummary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows
  that there is no  genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is
  entitled to judgment as a matter of law."   Bacon v. Lascelles, 165 Vt.
  214, 218,