Title: Rubin v. Town of Poultney

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Rubin v. Town of Poultney  (97-479); 168 Vt. 624; 721 A.2d 504

[Filed 28-Oct-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-479

                               JUNE TERM, 1998

Rebecca Rubin                        }       APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }       Rutland Superior Court
                                     }
Town of Poultney, et al.             }
                                     }       DOCKET NO. S0182-96 RcC

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

       Plaintiff Rebecca Rubin appeals the Rutland Superior Court's  grant of
  summary judgment in favor of defendants Town of Poultney, Poultney's town
  constable, Douglas Bishop, and Poultney's town manager, Jonas Rosenthal, on
  her negligent  failure to protect claim.(FN1)  We affirm.

       The parties do not dispute the facts.  Richard and Sheila Fleury's
  dog, Ben, bit plaintiff when she jogged past their home in  the Town of
  Poultney.  Two days prior to the incident, the town manager received
  reports that the dog had been roaming the streets frightening people.  The
  reports did not allege that the dog had bitten anyone.  In response to the
  reports, the town manager and the town constable visited the Fleurys'
  residence to advise them to  keep their dog tied up.  The next day, the
  town manager sent a letter to the Fleurys again advising them of the
  complaints and giving them notice that the town selectmen would take action
  in the event the dog bit someone.  The day after the town manager sent the
  letter, the dog bit and injured plaintiff. The dog was not tied up at the
  time of the incident.

       Plaintiff brought suit against defendants, claiming negligent failure
  to protect her from the Fleurys' dog.  The court granted  defendants'
  motion for summary judgment, holding that this case did not trigger
  defendants' statutorily prescribed duty to take action  to protect the
  general public from dogs that bite.  See 20 V.S.A. § 3546.(FN2)  The court
  further held that defendants were not negligent under plaintiff's
  alternative  theories of common law negligence liability.

       In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court applies the same
  standard as the trial court.  See  Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., 165 Vt.
  306, 309,