Title: Earle v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Earle v. State (2005-029); 180 Vt. 284; 910 A.2d 841

2006 VT 92

[Filed 01-Sep-2006]


       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.


                                 2006 VT 92

                                No. 2005-029


  Nathan C. Earle                                Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Chittenden Superior Court


  State of Vermont                               October Term, 2005



  Richard W. Norton, J.

  Norman E. Watts of Watts Law Firm, Woodstock, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Kaveh S. Shahi of Cleary Shahi & Aicher, P.C., Rutland for
    Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Nathan Earle appeals from a summary
  judgment order entered in favor of defendant Vermont Department of Social
  and Rehabilitation Services [SRS]. (FN1)   Plaintiff claims that SRS was
  negligent in both placing and failing to remove or control a foster child
  in plaintiff's grandparents' house, and, as a result, the foster child
  sexually abused him.  Plaintiff further claims that SRS was negligent in
  failing to remove him from his own household despite evidence of physical
  abuse by his mother.  SRS challenges plaintiff's claims on numerous
  theories, including lack of duty and sovereign immunity.  With respect to
  one of plaintiff's main claims, we find that SRS had no actionable duty to
  protect plaintiff.  With respect to the others, we conclude SRS's actions
  are protected by sovereign immunity because they fall within the
  discretionary function exception to the State's waiver of sovereign
  immunity.  We affirm.


       ¶  2.  We review a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment de
  novo, employing the same standard as the trial court.  Washington v.
  Pierce, 2005 VT 125, ¶ 17, 178 Vt. ___,