Title: Lane v. Town of Grafton

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Lane v. Town of Grafton  (95-453); 166 Vt. 148; 689 A.2d 455

[Filed 3-Jan-1997]

       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. 95-453

Thomas M. Lane                                    Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           Windham Superior Court

Town of Grafton                                   September Term, 1996

Robert Grussing III, J.

Michael J. Hertz, Brattleboro, for plaintiff-appellant

Janet Murnane of McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan, Burlington, for defendant-appellee

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff Thomas Lane appeals an order of the Windham
  Superior Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Town of
  Grafton on his negligence claims. Lane contends that the court erred in
  finding that he failed to meet notice requirements under 19 V.S.A. § 988
  and that his claims are therefore barred by governmental immunity.  We
  reverse.

       On April 14, 1992, as Lane was driving his truck across a bridge on
  the Grafton-Townshend Road in the Town of Grafton, a portion of the bridge
  caved in, resulting in damage to his vehicle and personal injuries.  The
  next day, Lane went to the Grafton Town Offices and told employees and a
  selectman about the accident, the damage to his truck, and his injuries. On
  April 23, nine days after the accident, Lane mailed a letter informing the
  Town:

          This is to notify you pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 987 that Mr. Lane
          makes a claim against the Town of Grafton for personal injuries
          and property damage suffered by reason of the insufficiency or
          want of repair of a bridge in Grafton which caved in as he drove
          over it on Tuesday, April 14, 1992.

       Between June 1992 and October 1994, Lane corresponded with the Town
  regarding the

 

  extent and treatment of his injuries; he submitted medical reports and
  examination records on several occasions.  After two years of
  correspondence, the property damage claim was settled, but the personal
  injury claim remained unresolved.

       In January 1995, Lane filed a negligence claim in Windham Superior
  Court to recover for his personal injuries.  The Town moved for summary
  judgment, claiming that Lane's notice was inadequate because it failed to
  state how the bridge was out of repair or specify his personal injuries, as
  required under 19 V.S.A. §§ 987 and 988.  Thus, the Town claimed protection
  from Lane's claim under governmental immunity based on a lack of proper
  statutory notice.  The court granted the Town's motion in July 1995,
  concluding that although Lane's notice concerning the condition of the
  bridge was adequate, his failure to notify the town of specific injuries or
  the extent of his injuries was inadequate under § 988.  This appeal
  followed.

       When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we apply the same
  standard as the trial court:  summary judgment is appropriate when the
  record clearly indicates there is no genuine issue of material fact and
  that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bacon v.
  Lascelles,     Vt.    ,    ,