Title: Bacon v. Lascelles

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Bacon v. Lascelles  (95-080); 165 Vt 214; 678 A.2d 902

[Opinion Filed 17-May-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. 95-080


Gail Bacon                                        Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Chittenden Superior Court

Clodomir Lascelles, et al.                        January Term, 1996



Linda Levitt, J.

       Frank E. Talbott of Wilson Powell Lang & Faris, Burlington, for
  plaintiff-appellant

       Marc B. Heath and Carol L. Shea of Downs Rachlin & Martin, P.C.,
  Burlington, for defendant-appellee Lascelles

       Neil H. Mickenberg of Mickenberg, Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch, for
  defendant-appellee Burlington Housing Authority


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson (FN1), Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       ALLEN, C.J.   Plaintiff Gail Bacon appeals from the grant of summary
  judgment for defendant Burlington Housing Authority (BHA) and from an
  adverse verdict and judgment in favor of defendant Lascelles in an action
  for the wrongful death of her son.  We affirm.

       On August 6, 1990, the decedent died during a fire in a two-story
  apartment owned by defendant Lascelles.  Plaintiff sued defendant Lascelles
  claiming he negligently built and maintained the apartment.  She alleged
  that the decedent could not escape the apartment because a second floor
  bedroom window did not open sufficiently in violation of applicable safety
  codes.

       Plaintiff also sued the BHA claiming it failed to properly inspect the
  apartment.  At the time of the fire, decedent was a guest of the
  apartment's tenants.  The tenants participated in the

 

  Section 8 housing program, which is a federal rent subsidy program
  implemented nationally by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
  Development (HUD) and administered locally by the BHA.  By agreement with
  HUD,(FN2) the BHA is required to inspect rental housing for compliance with
  the Federal Housing Quality Standards (HQS) prior to occupancy by
  recipients of federal rent subsidies.

       On December 8, 1989, the BHA inspected defendant Lascelles's apartment
  for compliance with the HQS.(FN3)  The inspector informed defendant Lascelles
  and the tenants of the results of the inspection, and both parties signed
  the Dwelling Inspection Checklist.  Under the category "Fire Exits" on the
  Dwelling Inspection Checklist, the BHA inspector checked "YES PASS."  This
  conclusion was based on the fact that the first floor of the apartment had
  two doors leading outside, one to the driveway and another to a back deck. 
  The inspector could not recall if she inspected the second floor bedroom
  windows, but her standard practice was to determine if the second floor
  windows opened but not to measure the window opening.

       On October 27, 1993, the BHA filed a motion for summary judgment
  arguing that it owed decedent no duty of reasonable care.  The trial court
  denied the motion concluding that the BHA "owed [decedent] a duty to act
  reasonably in inspecting the Section 8 premises."(FN4)  The



  court went on to say:

       It need not assure, unlike the owner of the premises, that the unit
  meets every safety condition existing at law.  BHA has only assumed a duty
  to inspect for the acceptability criteria in the federal regulations.  In
  this case, the building needed to contain an alternate means of egress in
  case of fire.

  On October 20, 1994, the BHA filed a second motion for summary judgment
  arguing that it did not breach its duty to the decedent.  On January 5,
  1995, the trial court granted summary judgment for the BHA concluding that
  "it did not breach its duty but acted reasonably in its inspection of this
  Section 8 premises and in determining that the building met the
  acceptability criteria outlined by the federal regulations."  In support of
  this conclusion, the trial court deferred to the BHA's interpretation of
  the HQS because it was responsible for their implementation.

       On pretrial motions, the court concluded that defendant Lascelles
  maintained the apartment in violation of the 1989 Vermont Fire Prevention
  and Building Code.  Consequently, the court allowed defendant Lascelles to
  offer evidence of prior inspections to rebut the presumption of negligence
  created by this finding.  Defendant offered evidence of the December 1989
  BHA inspection, a June 1990 BHA inspection,(FN5) and a July 1988 Burlington
  Minimum Housing Standards inspection.  The jury returned a verdict for the
  defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

                              I.


       Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting the
  defendant BHA's motion for summary judgment and that  the court erred when
  it deferred to the BHA's interpretation of the HQS.  We conclude that,
  while the trial court should not have deferred to the BHA's interpretation
  of the HUD regulations,  summary judgment was proper.

       We review a motion for summary judgment under the same as

 

  the standard as the trial court: summary 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.  Cavanaugh
  v. Abbott Laboratories, 145 Vt. 516, 520,