Title: Hillerby v. Town of Colchester

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Hillerby v. Town of Colchester  (96-243); 167 Vt. 270; 706 A.2d 446

[Filed 26-Nov-1997]

       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. 96-243

Donald Hillerby                              Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Chittenden Superior Court

Town of Colchester                           November Term, 1996

Alden T. Bryan, J.

       Richard R. Goldsborough and Corinne P. Wadhams of Jarvis & Kaplan,
  Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

       Richard C. Whittlesey of Roesler, Whittlesey, Meekins & Amidon,
  Burlington, and Frederick S. Lane III, Of Counsel, Winooski, for
  defendant-appellant

  PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       ALLEN, C.J.   The following question has been certified for review by
  this Court pursuant to V.R.A.P. 5(b): "Whether the traditional
  governmental/proprietary distinctions in municipal tort immunity law should
  be replaced with the so-called private-analog test as now employed in state
  tort claims under 12 V.S.A. § 5601?"  Because of the Legislature's approval
  of the governmental/proprietary distinction and the complex policy issues
  involved, we hold that the abrogation and replacement of the distinction
  are matters for the Legislature, not the courts.

       Plaintiff was riding his bicycle across a grassy area in the Town of
  Colchester when a manhole cover, over which he was crossing, collapsed.  He
  sued the Town and others for injuries allegedly sustained during the
  occurrence.  The Town filed a motion for summary judgment claiming
  sovereign immunity.  In deciding the motion, the Chittenden Superior Court
  abandoned the established governmental/proprietary distinction in favor of
  the private-analog test, a test used to determine the liability of the
  State in tort actions.  See 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a). It found that plaintiff
  satisfied the requirements of the test and denied the Town's motion.  The

 

  court then granted a motion by the Town requesting permission to appeal the
  court's interlocutory order to this Court.

       Municipal immunity is a common-law doctrine dating back in Vermont to
  the mid 1800s.  See Baxter v. Winooski Turnpike Co., 22 Vt. 114, 123 (1849)
  (law does not provide remedy where individual sustains injury due to
  negligence of town).  The immunity of a municipality, however, is not
  unlimited.  Traditionally, courts have held municipalities liable only
  where the negligent act arises out of a duty that is proprietary in nature
  as opposed to governmental.  The rationale for this is that municipalities
  perform governmental responsibilities for the general public as
  instrumentalities of the State; they conduct proprietary activities only
  for the benefit of the municipality and its residents.  See Marshall v.
  Town of Brattleboro, 121 Vt. 417, 422,