Title: Faulkner v. Caledonia County Fair Assn.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Faulkner v. Caledonia County Fair Assn. (2003-433); 178 Vt. 51; 869 A.2d 103

2004 VT 123

[Filed 17-Dec-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 123

                                No. 2003-433

  Dorrie L. Faulkner	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Caledonia Superior Court

  Caledonia County Fair Association and 	 June Term, 2004
  Marc's Amusement Co., Inc.

  Mark J. Keller, J.

  Jan Peter Dembinski of Jan Peter Dembinski, PLC, Woodstock, and Herbert G.
    Ogden of Liccardi Crawford & Ogden, P.C., Rutland, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  John Paul Faignant of Miller Faignant & Behrens, P.C., Rutland, for
    Defendants-Appellees.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., (FN1)  Dooley, (FN2)  Johnson, Skoglund 
            and Reiber, JJ.

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.  In this personal injury action, plaintiff
  appeals the Caledonia Superior Court's August 28, 2003 decision granting
  defendants' motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff argues on appeal that this action
  is sufficiently distinct from the lawsuit she filed, and eventually won,
  for injuries sustained as a result of the same occurrence giving rise to
  her current lawsuit.  Because we agree with the trial court that the
  doctrine of claim preclusion bars plaintiff from relitigating the personal
  injury claims she pressed in her first lawsuit, we affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  The parties do not contest the relevant facts.  In 1991,
  plaintiff sustained injuries when a large metal panel struck her head while
  she was on an amusement ride at the Caledonia County Fair run by defendant
  Caledonia County Fair Association (County Fair).  In 1994, plaintiff sued
  the operator of the ride, defendant Marc's Amusement Co., Inc. (Marc's),
  for damages resulting from her head injuries.  In 1995, the U.S. District
  Court rendered a verdict in her favor for $5,000, and she successfully
  collected that amount.  

       ¶  3.  On November 12, 1999, plaintiff suffered her first grand mal
  seizure.  On April 5, 2000, her treating physician diagnosed her with
  epilepsy and determined that the 1991 head injury was the proximate cause
  of the epilepsy.  In November 2002, plaintiff sued both defendants, seeking
  damages for the epilepsy that allegedly resulted from the 1991 injury. 
  Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss in May 2003.
   
       ¶  4.  In the decision currently on appeal, the trial court granted
  defendants' motion to dismiss on two grounds.  First, the court agreed with
  defendants that plaintiff's epilepsy claim was barred by the doctrine of
  claim preclusion, (FN3) because plaintiff's current claim differs from her
  1994 claim only in that she currently alleges a more serious injury to her
  head.  Further, the court held that its ruling applied to both defendants
  (even though plaintiff sued only Marc's in her first action) because they
  were in privity.  Second, the trial court found that plaintiff's claim was
  time-barred under 12 V.S.A. § 512(4). (FN4)  Plaintiff then filed this
  appeal.

       ¶  5.  In reviewing a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss, this
  Court accepts as true "all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint"
  and draws "all reasonable inferences from those facts."  Gilman v. Maine
  Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2003 VT 55, ¶ 14, 175 Vt. 554,