Title: Creighton v. Town of Windsor

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
 
 
                                No. 89-237
 
 
 
Jeffrey and Donna Creighton                  Supreme Court
 
                                             On Appeal From
     v.                                      Windsor Superior Court
 
Town of Windsor                              January Term, 1990
 
 
Matthew I. Katz, J.
 
William J. Donahue, White River Junction, for plaintiffs-appellants
 
Jeffrey W. White of Theriault & Joslin, P.C., Montpelier, for defendant-
  appellee
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
 
 
     DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiffs, Jeffrey and Donna Creighton, appeal from a
summary judgment by the Windsor Superior Court in favor of defendant, the
Town of Windsor, in a suit in which plaintiffs sought damages arising from a
sewage blockage, asserting that the town breached its duty to maintain the
sewer system against back-ups.  We reverse and remand.
     The Town of Windsor operates a municipal sewage system.  Plaintiffs
own a home on Central Street, which is connected to the town's six-inch
sewer main through their four inch pipe.  The six-inch main, which has been
under the plaintiffs' property since 1948, connects to a twenty-four inch
line coming from the north end of Central Street and running south toward
the sewage treatment plant.  The six-inch main services two additional
residences and a church and parsonage.  On December 22, 1986, it backed-up
and, as a result, raw sewage ran out of the plaintiffs' ground floor commode
and into their home.
     Plaintiffs brought suit against defendant, alleging initially that the
sewer back-up was caused by the negligent operation and maintenance of its
sewage system and that the damage in plaintiffs' house was caused by the
actions of defendants' agents in attempting to eliminate the back-up. (FN1)  The
complaint also included a count alleging breach of an implied contract to
provide reasonable sewage disposal services. (FN2)
     Relying on the deposition of its public works director, defendant moved
for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs responded with affidavits from a neighbor
who lives directly across the street from plaintiffs and from a master
plumber.
     Defendant relied on a number of statements in the deposition of the
public works director.  The director stated that the town had received five
or six complaints of sewage back-ups on Central Street over the past twenty-
five years.  However, the back-ups were caused by a surcharge of storm
waters which occurred when the sewer pipes overflowed due to heavy rainfall.
According to the director, there had been no back-ups caused by obstructions
in the pipes in the area.
     Plaintiffs responded with an affidavit from a neighbor stating that he
had experienced a severe blockage ten or twelve years earlier and that he
had notified the town fire chief.  A second affidavit from a plumber stated
that the town was providing poor service, that it was not meeting its
obligation to keep the system in adequate repair, that it did not know where
the lines were and that it should perform dye tests to determine where the
lines were.
     The town then submitted an affidavit of the public works director
stating that he could find no record of a sewer back-up at the neighbor's
residence and, in any event, a back-up at the neighbor's residence could not
cause one at the plaintiffs' residence.
     The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, holding that
the town was not liable because it never had notice of the existence of an
obstruction in one of its sewers as required by Stoneking v. Orleans
Village, 127 Vt. 161, 167,