Title: Peters v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY_ORDER.93-004; 161 Vt. 582; 636 A.2d 340

[Filed 19-Nov-1993]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-004

                             OCTOBER TERM, 1993


 Donna Peters, et al.              }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          Addison Superior Court
                                   }
                                   }
 State of Vermont                  }          DOCKET NO. S259-89Ac


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      Lawrence Peters died as the result of an accident on Route 125 in East
 Middlebury, Vermont, on February 3, 1988.  His widow, on behalf of herself,
 the estate, and the minor children, brought a wrongful death action against
 the State of Vermont, alleging that the State was negligent in the placement
 of warning signs on the highway.  She claimed that the State waived immunity
 for the negligence under 12 V.S.A. { 5601(a) (FN1) of the Vermont Tort Claims
 Act.

      The State moved for summary judgment on the ground that placement of
 warning signs on state highways is a uniquely governmental function for which
 no private analog exists, and therefore, there was no waiver of sovereign
 immunity.  The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for the State.
 Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which the court denied, and this appeal
 followed.  We reverse.

      In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we use the same standard as
 that used by the trial court.  Summary judgment is appropriate where there is
 no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
 as a matter of law.  V.R.C.P. 56(c); State v. Delaney, 157 Vt. 247, 252, 598 A.2d 138, 141 (1991).  Here, the State conceded, for purposes of its motion,
 that it was negligent in the placement of warning signs on Route 125 and that
 this negligence caused the death of Lawrence Peters.  The issue on appeal,
 therefore, is whether the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

 

      Plaintiff contends that the facts conceded by the State are comparable
 to situations where a private citizen may be sued, and therefore, a private
 analog does exist.  We agree.  In LaShay v. Department of Soc. & Rehab.
 Servs., ___ Vt. ___, ___,