Title: Rodrigue v. VALCO Enterprises, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Rodrigue v. VALCO Enterprises, Inc.  (97-491); 169 Vt. 539; 726 A.2d 61

[Filed 25-Jan-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-491

                             JANUARY TERM, 1999

Maurice L. Rodrigue	             }	APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.	                             }	Orleans Superior
                                     }	
VALCO Enterprises, Inc.,	     }
d/b/a Valley's Steak House and	     }	DOCKET NO. 63-03-96 Oscv
Renee C. Valley	                     }

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff appeals the superior court's determination that his dram
  shop action was filed  beyond the applicable limitations period.  We
  affirm.

       In the early evening hours of December 21, 1993, a driver rear-ended
  the car plaintiff was  driving and left the scene of the accident without
  stopping.  On February 14, 1994, following a  police investigation of the
  accident, Peter Langmaid was arraigned on charges of (1) driving with  a
  suspended license, fifth offense; (2) driving in a careless and negligent
  manner; and (3) leaving  the scene of an accident.  On March 19, 1996,
  plaintiff filed a complaint against VALCO  Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
  Valley's Steak House, and the business's owner, Rene C. Valley, alleging 
  negligence, gross negligence, violation of Vermont's Dram Shop Act, 7
  V.S.A. §§ 501-507, and  fraudulent concealment.  In October 1997, following
  a hearing, the superior court granted  summary judgment to defendants,
  ruling that (1) plaintiff's dram shop claim accrued in February  1994, and
  thus was filed beyond the Dram Shop Act's two-year limitations period; (2)
  any  fraudulent concealment on the part of Rene Valley did not toll the
  limitations period after the dram  shop claim had accrued; and (3) the Dram
  Shop Act preempted plaintiff's common law negligence  claims.  On appeal,
  plaintiff argues that the court erred in dismissing his complaint because
  (1)  his dram shop claim did not accrue until the fall of 1994 when he
  learned that Langmaid was  overserved intoxicating liquor at Valley's Steak
  House; (2) Rene Valley's fraudulent concealment  of the dram shop cause of
  action tolled the limitations period; and (3) the Dram Shop Act did not 
  preempt his common law claims.

       An action to recover damages under the Dram Shop Act "shall be
  commenced within two  years after the cause of action accrues, and not
  after."  7 V.S.A. § 501(d).  Injuries to the person  are generally "deemed
  to accrue as of the date of the discovery of the injury."  12 V.S.A. § 
  512(4).  At least in the context of professional malpractice cases, we have
  construed the  "discovery rule" to commence the running of the statute of
  limitations "`only when a plaintiff  discovers or reasonably should
  discover the injury, its cause, and the existence of a cause of  action.'" 
  Lillicrap v. Martin, 156 Vt. 165, 176, 591 A.2d 41, 47 (1989) (quoting Ware
  v.  Gifford Mem'l Hosp.,