Title: Bradshaw v. Joseph

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

BRADSHAW_V_JOSEPH.94-667; 164 Vt 155; 666 A.2d 1175

[Filed 25-Aug-1995]

       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. 94-667


Sydney Bradshaw                                   Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                            Chittenden Superior Court

                                                  June Term, 1995
Ben W. Joseph



Linda Levitt, J.

       Jonathan P. Cawley of Davis Associates, P.C., Barre, for
  plaintiff-appellant

       Douglas C. Pierson and Parker M. Riehle of Pierson, Wadhams, Quinn &
  Yates, Burlington, for defendant-appellee



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff appeals from a grant of summary judgment in
  defendant's favor by the Chittenden Superior Court, which held that 12
  V.S.A. § 5602 bars an action against defendant for acts or omissions as a
  public defender.  We affirm.

       In 1991, plaintiff was charged with sexual assault.  The court set
  bail at $10,000, and because plaintiff could not meet that requirement, he
  was held at the Chittenden County Correctional Center.  The court appointed
  defendant, a public defender, to represent plaintiff, and after entering an
  appearance, defendant moved to reduce plaintiff's bail.  The court
  subsequently reduced bail to $5000.  Plaintiff alleges that defendant
  failed to notify him of the reduction, and defendant counters that he never
  received notice of the reduction from the trial court.  Plaintiff asserts
  that he had sufficient funds to have met the reduced bail requirement and
  that as a result of defendant's negligence, he remained incarcerated until
  he was eventually acquitted, suffering damages.

 

       Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that, as a public
  defender, he was a state employee, and thus, 12 V.S.A. § 5602 precluded a
  suit against him.  The court agreed and granted the motion.  This appeal
  followed.

       The sole question on appeal is whether a public defender is a "state
  employee" and therefore may not be sued for negligence while acting within
  the scope of his employment.  12 V.S.A. § 5602 provides that when any act
  or omission of a state employee, as defined in 3 V.S.A. § 1101, "is
  believed to have caused damage to property, injury to persons, or death,
  the exclusive right of action shall lie against the state" and suit against
  the employee is prohibited. A "state employee" is defined in § 1101 and
  "includes any elective or appointive officer or employee within the
  legislative, executive or judicial branches of state government or any
  former such employee or officer."  3 V.S.A. § 1101(b) (emphasis added). 
  The definition "includes, without limitation," eight categories of state
  employees, including state's attorneys.  Id.

       Although none of § 1101(b)'s subsections specifically mentions public
  defenders or the defender general, executive and judicial branch employees
  are included within the definition of "state employee."  The statute uses
  the word "includes," which ordinarily signifies an intent to enlarge a
  statute's application, not to limit it.  See Vermont Ass'n of Realtors v.
  State, 156 Vt. 525, 531, 593 A.2d 462, 465 (1991).  The enumeration of
  positions is "without limitation," indicating a clear intent to enlarge the
  categories of positions that fall within the definition of "state
  employee."  In this case, we look at the origin, function and source of
  funding of a public defender position and conclude that defendant is a
  state employee under § 1101(b).

       The public defender's office and the office of defender general were
  created by statute. See 13 V.S.A. §§ 5271-5277 (public defender office) &
  5252-5257 (office of defender general). The defender general has the
  responsibility to ensure that needy persons are provided legal services
  under chapter 163 of Title 13, see id. § 5253(a), and may establish local
  public defender offices to carry out that responsibility.  Id. § 5271. 
  Thus, the function of a public defender is to provide legal representation
  to needy persons entitled to receive such

 

  representation at state expense.  The defender general is appointed by
  the governor "subject to the advice and consent of the senate," and is a
  full-time state employee, receiving compensation set by the Legislature. 
  See id. § 5252.  The defender general's budget is set by the Legislature,
  and the defender general "is responsible for assuming expenses for his
  office and all local offices."  Id. § 5254(d).  Public defenders receive
  their compensation from the defender general's budget, see id. § 5272, and
  the annual rate of their compensation may not exceed $1000 less than the
  defender general's salary.  Id. § 5254(c).  Although exempted from
  classified state service, see 13 V.S.A. § 5254(a), the origin, function and
  funding of public defenders lead us to conclude that they are state
  employees and, as such, 12 V.S.A. § 5602 bars suit against them for acts or
  omissions occurring within the scope of their employment.

       In Ferri v. Ackerman,