Court Opinion

ID: 9731217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:39:02.598046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:16.109641
License: Public Domain

Morse, J.,
concurring. I concur in nearly all of the Court’s opinion but write separately because I do not accept the Court’s analysis in II A.
My reading of 21 V.S.A. § 241 (entitled “General duties”) differs from the Court’s and the dissent’s in a fundamental respect. That section provides:
*143(a) A person shall not install or maintain a boiler or pressure vessel which is unsafe or likely to be unsafe to other persons or property.
(b) A person shall not operate, cause to be operated, or permit to be operated any boiler or pressure vessel under his control or ownership, in a manner which causes or is likely to cause harm to other persons or property.
Violating § 241 should not be “evidence of negligence” because it is not the type of safety statute which proscribes specific conduct, for example, exceeding a speed limit. To the contrary, § 241 contains no standards of conduct whatsoever.
As a general rule, a court may adopt the requirements of a statute as the applicable standard of care in a particular tort action, and, when it does, violating the statute either becomes negligence per se, creates a presumption or prima facie case of negligence, or is some evidence of negligence. W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 36, at 220, 230 (5th ed. 1984). But, in my opinion, the better-reasoned view is that such a statute must express a rule of conduct in specific, concrete terms, not merely set out a general or abstract standard of care. See, e.g., Rimer v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 641 F.2d 450, 454-55 (6th Cir. 1981) (regulations making pilot responsible for determining whether aircraft is airworthy before takeoff did not create specific enough duties to be basis of negligence per se instruction); Dahle v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 725 P.2d 1069, 1073-74 (Alaska 1986) (statute requiring employer to keep place of employment free of recognized hazards did not set forth a specific enough standard of conduct to be basis for negligence per se instruction); Bauman v. Crawford, 104 Wash. 2d 241, 247 n.1, 704 P.2d 1181, 1186 n.1 (1985) (en banc) (statutorily proscribed conduct must qualify as .negligence per se before violating statute may be introduced even as mere evidence of negligence).
Rather than creating a specific standard of conduct for those who own or control the operation of boilers, § 241 sets the stage for the promulgation of safety standards under § 242, which authorizes the commissioner of labor and industry “to make rules pertaining to boilers and pressure vessels, and standards to be observed, necessary for the safety and protection of the public, employees and property.” In other words, § 241 does not *144define a person’s duties with regard to boilers except to state the broad objective that boilers be “safe.” If § 241 is read to create a binding, all-encompassing, safety standard, its plain meaning creates strict liability whenever someone is hurt or property is damaged as a result of boiler operation. Injury alone is not evidence of negligence, and § 241(b) read literally makes the occurrence of harm tantamount to a violation of its terms. In short, I do not believe the Legislature intended to penalize persons who own or control boilers without a violation of a specific safety regulation promulgated by the commissioner.
I believe the court should have instructed the jury in accordance with my view that the common law, rather than § 241(b), requires landlords to exercise reasonable care in the ownership and maintenance of rented premises. As stated in Favreau v. Miller, 156 Vt. 222, 228, 591 A.2d 68, 72 (1991) (plurality), “Vermont landlords too may be held liable for exposing their tenants to unreasonable risks of harm in the leased premises, whether or not they retain ‘control’ of the dangerous condition.” I agree with the Court in Part II C, however, that plaintiff waived this claim by not preserving it.