Court Opinion

ID: 9522103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:18:04.924071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:18.479762
License: Public Domain

Toor, Supr. J.,
¶ 46. Specially Assigned, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the Court’s ruling that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A is applicable here, and that the discretionary function doctrine is inapplicable on the specific *66facts of this case. Thus, I agree with the remand for a trial on the claims against the State. However, I disagree with the majority’s view that a claim of gross negligence can survive here against the individual troopers.
¶47. It is true that the line between ordinary negligence and gross negligence is often a hard one to draw, and thus is often one for the jury. This case, however, involves no such hard lines. A jury may well find that the troopers were negligent if the plaintiff’s claims as to the detailed directions to the house are established at trial, but even with those facts this is a case of ordinary negligence. Gross negligence has been defined in this state as follows:
Gross negligence is substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude and more culpable than ordinary negligence. Gross negligence is equivalent to the failure to exercise even a slight degree of care. ... It is very great negligence, or the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care. It amounts to indifference to present legal duty, and to utter forgetfulness of legal obligations so far as other persons may be affected. It is a heedless and palpable violation of legal duty respecting the rights of others.
Shaw v. Moore, 104 Vt. 529, 531, 162 A. 373, 374 (1932). It “requires more than an error of judgment, momentary inattention, or loss of presence of mind.” State v. Carlin, 2010 VT 79, ¶ 6, 188 Vt. 602, 9 A.3d 312 (mem.) (quotations omitted). It is “an indifference to the duty owed to another.” Hardingham v. United Counseling Serv. of Bennington Cnty., 164 Vt. 478, 481, 672 A.2d 480, 482 (1995) (quotations and alterations omitted).
¶ 48. Trial courts may dismiss or grant summary judgment on claims for gross negligence when the facts establish nothing more than ordinary negligence. For example, “a driver’s momentary inattention, by itself, is insufficient to warrant a finding of gross negligence.” Carlin, 2010 VT 79, ¶ 9. Likewise, “falling asleep at the wheel does not, in and of itself, constitute gross negligence.” State v. Valyou, 2006 VT 105, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. 627, 910 A.2d 922 (mem.). Absent more, these sorts of acts involving mistakes or a lack of attention are ordinary negligence as a matter of law and need not be submitted to a jury.
¶ 49. This Court has affirmed the dismissal of a gross negligence claim in an analogous matter. The case involved a trooper’s *67failure to arrest the plaintiffs boyfriend after an incident of domestic assault, leading to a subsequent assault after the trooper left the residence. The Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that “the facts alleged — the trooper responded to a report of domestic violence, found a bruised and bleeding victim, interviewed her within earshot of her boyfriend, and left without arresting the boyfriend — did not rise to the level of gross negligence as a matter of law.” Kane v. Lamothe, 2007 VT 91, ¶ 12, 182 Vt. 241, 936 A.2d 1303. The Court concluded that although “the trooper might have better investigated the matter ... , plaintiff nevertheless failed to set forth a wholesale absence of care or indifference to duty owed to her, as is necessary to state a viable claim for gross negligence.” Id. ¶ 13.
¶ 50. The same is true here. The facts alleged in this case would establish an error of judgment, but not a “wholesale absence of care or indifference to duty.” Id. Surely the troopers exercised at least “a slight degree of care” by going to and investigating the property around the home that they thought to be the decedent’s. Carlin, 2010 VT 79, ¶ 6. Their acts cannot fairly be characterized as a “heedless and palpable violation of legal duty.” Shaw, 104 Vt. at 531, 162 A. at 374. “[Sjimple incompetence,” which is essentially what is alleged here, does not rise to the level of gross negligence. Powers v. Office of Child Support, 173 Vt. 390, 399, 795 A.2d 1259, 1266 (2002); see also Fortunati v. Campagne, 681 F. Supp. 2d 528, 545 (D. Vt. 2009) (“[Questionable decisions [by troopers and] perhaps preferable alternatives that were not pursued . . . [do] not amount to the wholesale abdication of care required [to show] gross negligence [under Vermont law].”).
¶ 51. To show gross negligence here would require significantly more extreme facts — such as, for example, the troopers’ utter failure to go to the house despite claiming to have done so. The facts alleged just do not establish anything more than ordinary negligence. I would therefore affirm the trial court’s entry of judgment for the defendants on all claims against the individual troopers.
¶ 52. I am authorized to state that Judge Bent joins this concurrence and dissent.