Opinion ID: 3184676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application to the Evidence in this Case

Text: ¶ 33. Construing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff’s claim, Rubin v. Town of Poultney, 168 Vt. 624, 625, 721 A.2d 504, 506 (1998), he has more than sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment and get to a jury. I focus in particular on two clusters of evidence: (1) evidence that Toomey never transferred possession of the property that was inadequately fenced to the possession and control of Wielt, and thus, throughout the period leading up to plaintiff’s injuries, retained the degree of control of the property that is a prerequisite to liability; and (2) evidence that, while retaining the ability to control activities on the property, Toomey was fully aware of the state of the fencing. ¶ 34. With respect to the first cluster, the jury could conclude that the horse escaped from a temporary enclosure on 1952 Harwood Hill. In fact, in his motion below, Toomey asserts that the fact that the horse hit by plaintiff was pastured on the 1952 Harwood Hill lot on the day of the accident is undisputed. ¶ 35. There is ample evidence that Toomey never leased the undeveloped 1952 Harwood Hill property to Wielt: Toomey’s lease with Wielt only references the property at 1900 Harwood Hill, makes no mention of pasturing horses, and did not include the 1952 Harwood Hill property. Wielt testified that the property she rented included the main house at 1900 Harwood Hill and included limited access to an associated temporary structure that was not on the 1952 Harwood Hill property. Again, Toomey has identified this as an undisputed fact. The evidence property by tenants’ dog where evidence supported inferences that landowner was aware of vicious tendencies of tenants’ dog and could have exerted control over dangerous condition by, prior to signing lease, requiring tenants to take measures to ensure that dog would be adequately confined or by refusing to re-let premises if they were unwilling to abate danger). 18 suggests that Toomey did not lease the 1952 Harwood Hill property to Wielt for the purpose of pasturing her horses, but, rather, allowed her to pasture her horses on the 1952 Harwood Hill property by permission. As Toomey’s statement of undisputed facts reflects, “Toomey allowed Wielt to pasture her horses in a south pasture on 1900 Harwood Hill Road and a north pasture on 1952 Harwood Hill Road.” ¶ 36. Accordingly, an abundance of evidence supports the conclusion that Toomey retained possession and control of the 1952 Harwood Hill property through the date of the accident. The jury could conclude that, at most, Toomey extended to Wielt an open-ended, nonexclusive, permissive license to pasture her horses on his 1952 Harwood Hill property. In fact, that is probably the only conclusion the jury could reach on this record. Wielt’s continuing pasturing of horses on the 1952 Harwood Hill property depended on Toomey’s continuing consent to that arrangement. For that reason, this is not a landowner-tenant case, and the central consideration that infuses the applicable rule in those cases—that a landowner yields control over a property upon delivering it to a tenant pursuant to a lease—does not apply here. Instead, this case is most like the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Misterek, in which an employer allowed an employee to pasture horses on company property on the condition that the employee maintain adequate fencing. 531 P.2d at 806. Toomey gave Wielt permission to pasture her horses on the 1952 Harwood Hill property, retained his possession and ability to control that property throughout the period leading up to the accident, and at any time could have revoked his permission or required Wielt to erect a more secure enclosure. ¶ 37. The fact that Toomey required Wielt to ensure adequate fencing for the horses as a condition of her use may give rise to an obligation to indemnify him, but does not alter his obligations, as a landowner in possession and control of the property, to third parties. See Restatement (Second) Torts § 379A, cmt. d (providing that in landowner-tenant context, landowner cannot avoid duty of care to third parties by disclaiming responsibility for dangerous 19 activities in the lease); Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, 2000 MT 334, ¶ 108 (stating that in landowner-tenant context, tenant’s contractual obligations relating to fencing livestock may give landowner right of indemnification, but cannot absolve landowner of liability to injured third party who was not party to agreement).5 ¶ 38. The second critical factor in the assessment of Toomey’s duty is the extent to which he was present and had knowledge of the activities conducted, with his permission, on his 1952 Harwood Hill property. Based on the evidence relating to the fencing, the jury could find that the enclosure boundary was within fifteen feet of a public highway; that the enclosure consisted of temporary electric fencing; that it consisted of fiberglass posts driven a few inches into the ground, with two strands of wire strung between them; that only a single strand of wire enclosed the gate to the enclosure; that there was significant slack in the fence wires and some fiberglass posts leaned over and, on some occasions, fell over; that the electric fence wires would sometimes touch grass or other foliage, thereby reducing its ability to contain the horses; and that the fence was three to four feet high.6 ¶ 39. The record includes evidence that Toomey lived on the property adjacent to the 1952 Harwood Hill property, and that his gravel driveway to Route 7A passed right by the 1952 5 I emphasize the fact that Toomey retained possession of the 1952 Harwood Hill property because that is apparently the property from which the horse escaped its enclosure. I do not mean to suggest that if the horse had escaped from the enclosure at 1900 Harwood Hill I would affirm summary judgment for defendant. The lease in this case appears to be a month-tomonth lease, meaning Toomey had the ability to assert control over use of that property each time he renewed the lease. The analysis with respect to this parcel would be different, but the outcome would not. See Park v. Hoffard, 847 P.2d at 855 (noting landowner may be liable because of “special relationship” arising from landowner’s “ability to control the activities of the tenant” through deciding whether to renew lease). 6 The focus of this appeal is the question of whether Toomey had a duty to plaintiff. Whether, assuming that he had a duty to third parties to take reasonable care with respect to the way horses were pastured on his land, these facts are sufficient to show a lack of reasonable care will be a question for the jury. This is sufficient evidence of an unreasonable risk to get to the jury on the question whether Toomey breached his duty of reasonable care, but may not compel the conclusion that he did. 20 Harwood Hill property enclosure. Wielt testified that Toomey would have seen the horse pasturing “any time he was in the vicinity.” In fact, Toomey testified that he walked past the horse pastures on his way to the grocery store “almost daily,” often stopping to feed the horses apples as he passed. The fence at 1952 Harwood Hill was installed within ten to fifteen feet from the southbound lane on Route 7A—the major road by which Toomey accessed his home. On the basis of this evidence, a jury could have concluded that Toomey had knowledge of the way in which the pastured horses were contained on the 1952 Harwood Hill property, and the condition of the fencing. ¶ 40. Given that the jury could conclude that Wielt’s activities on the 1952 Harwood Hill property depended upon Toomey’s continuing consent, because Toomey maintained possession and control of that property, and given Toomey’s knowledge of Wielt’s activities there—including the condition of the fencing––I cannot agree with the majority that Toomey is entitled to summary judgment on the question of duty. Basic principles of tort law compel the opposite conclusion.