Title: Amiot v. Ames

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Amiot v. Ames  (96-134); 166 Vt. 288; 693 A.2d 675

[Filed 28-Feb-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. 96-134

Victor Amiot                                      Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Orleans Superior Court

David Ames                                        September Term, 1996

Brian Burgess, J.

       Stephen J. Craddock, Montpelier, and Jeffrey W. White, Royalton, for
  plaintiff-appellee

       Richard H. Wadhams, Jr., and James E. Preston of Pierson, Wadhams,
  Quinn & Yates, Burlington, for defendant-appellant

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

       GIBSON, J.   Defendant David Ames seeks interlocutory review of the
  Orleans Superior Court's denial of his motion to dismiss, ruling that
  Vermont law applies to a motor vehicle accident in Quebec between Canadian
  and Vermont residents.  Defendant claims the court erred in refusing to
  follow the choice-of-law rule of lex loci delicti, which would require
  applying Quebec law.  In the event this Court agrees with the trial court
  and adopts the Restatement's significant-relationship approach, defendant
  contends the trial court erred in concluding that Vermont law applies.  We
  affirm the court's use of the significant-relationship approach to choice
  of law, but because of the sparseness of the factual record, we remand for
  the trial court to make the choice-of-law determination following
  development of an evidentiary record.

       In November 1992, defendant Ames struck plaintiff Victor Amiot's
  vehicle, in which plaintiff was a passenger, while plaintiff's vehicle was
  stopped at Canadian customs just across the Quebec-Vermont border. 
  Plaintiff, who is a resident of Alberta, Canada, had just left Vermont and
  entered Quebec en route from New Brunswick to Alberta.  Plaintiff alleges
  that

 

  defendant, a resident of Vermont, suffered a complication from diabetes
  while driving in Vermont and consequently lost control of his car, missed
  his exit, and crossed the border, striking plaintiff's vehicle.  As a
  result of the accident, plaintiff incurred injuries and was forced into
  premature retirement.

       In September 1995, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that
  under Vermont's choice-of-law doctrine either Quebec or Alberta law must be
  applied to the suit.(FN1)  Because Alberta law would require application of
  Quebec law and because Quebec statutorily limits liability, defendant
  alleges that plaintiff would have no right to recover damages under Vermont
  law.  In January 1996, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss.  The
  court predicted that Vermont would no longer automatically apply the
  substantive law of the state or country where the accident occurred and
  would instead adopt the significant-relationship approach.  Under this
  approach, the court concluded that Vermont had the most significant
  relationship with the incident.  This interlocutory appeal followed.

                                     I.

       A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
  be granted, V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), should not be granted unless "it appears
  beyond doubt" that there exist no facts or circumstances that would entitle
  the plaintiff to relief.  Levinsky v. Diamond, 140 Vt. 595, 600-01,