Title: Lane v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Lane v. State (2000-564); 174 Vt. 219; 811 A.2d 190

[Filed 23-Aug-2002]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 25-Sep-2002]

       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. 2000-564


  Roger A. Lane	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from

       v.	                                 Chittenden Superior Court


  State of Vermont	                         January Term, 2002


  David A. Jenkins, J.
      
  Allan R. Keyes of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, and Reg J. Lormon, 
    Los Gatos, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Cathy Nelligan Norman and 
    Richard A. Johnson, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for 
    Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       SKOGLUND, J.   This appeal arises out of a negligence action brought
  by plaintiff Roger Lane against defendant State of Vermont to recover for
  injuries sustained in an accident on an icy highway.  Lane argues that the
  State was negligent in (1) failing to close the section of Interstate 89
  North in the vicinity of the Waterbury/Bolton town line, (2) failing to
  adequately advise the motoring public that this section of I-89 was icy,
  and (3) affirmatively creating a defective condition by paving this section
  of I-89 with open graded pavement and enhancing the dangerous condition by
  failing to take specific measures to prevent and/or ameliorate the
  formation of ice.  The State filed a motion for summary judgment on all of
  Lane's claims on the grounds that they were barred by the

 

  discretionary function exception to the State's waiver of sovereign
  immunity.  The Chittenden Superior Court granted the State's motion for
  summary judgment on November 6, 2000.  The court held that Lane's first two
  claims against the State were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity
  and that Lane failed to raise any issue of material fact that the State
  affirmatively caused a defective condition in the highway or enhanced the
  dangerous condition by inadequate salting.  Lane appeals the grant of
  summary judgment to the State.  We affirm.

       In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court applies the same
  standard as the trial court.  Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., 164 Vt. 13,
  17-18,