Title: Searles v. Agency of Transportation

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Searles v. Agency of Transportation (99-210); 171 Vt. 562; 762 A.2d 812 

[Filed 24-Aug-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 15-Sep-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-210

                               JUNE TERM, 2000

Paul Searles, et al.	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Orleans Superior Court
                                       }	
Vermont Agency of Transportation       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 212-9-97 Oscv

                                                Trial Judge:  David A. Jenkins

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

       In this negligence action, plaintiffs appeal the Orleans Superior
  Court's grant of summary  judgement to defendant State of Vermont Agency of
  Transportation.  Plaintiffs claimed the State was  under a duty to maintain
  a sign warning of a nearby roadway intersection, the failure of the State
  to  do so was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries, and the
  State was not immune from suit for  their negligent inaction.  The court
  held:  (1) the State was immune from liability under 12 V.S.A. § 
  5601(e)(8); (2) the State was immune from liability under 12 V.S.A. §
  5601(e)(1); (3) the State had  no duty to erect a warning sign; and (4) the
  failure to erect a warning sign was not a proximate cause  of the
  plaintiffs' injuries.  We conclude that the State is immune from liability
  under 12 V.S.A. §  5601(e)(1), and, therefore, affirm.

       On December 27, 1994, appellant Lisa Searles was driving east on Route
  105 in Berkshire;  Jason Callan was driving in a line of cars behind the
  Searles.  Lisa slowed down, put on her left-hand-turn signal, and began
  turning left on to Marvin Road, a dirt road.  At the same time, Callan 
  pulled left into the westbound lane of Route 105, and began to pass the
  cars in front of him.  Callan's  car struck Lisa's car, and Lisa and her
  daughters, Tanya and Denise, were injured.  The Searles  family sued the
  State in negligence, alleging that the State had, and breached, a duty to
  erect a sign  on Route 105, warning drivers of the intersection with Marvin
  Road, and that the failure to erect a  sign was a proximate cause of their
  damages.  More specifically, according to the Searles, there had  been a
  sign on Route 105 east, near the intersection with Marvin Road, warning
  drivers of a nearby  railroad crossing and the road.  Some time prior to
  the accident, both the railroad track and the  warning sign were removed. 
  The Searles contended that this sign served a dual purpose, warning 
  drivers of both the railroad and the intersection with Marvin Road, and
  that the State should have  replaced it with a sign warning drivers of the
  intersection with Marvin Road. 

       "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, after giving the
  benefit of all reasonable  doubts and inferences to the nonmoving party." 
  City of Burlington v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.,  163 Vt. 124, 127,