Demag v. Better Power Equipment, Inc.
2014 VT 78, 197 Vt. 176, 102 A.3d 1101 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owes a single duty of reasonable care to all persons lawfully on the premises, regardless of whether they are classified as invitees or licensees. The traditional common law distinction between the duties owed to invitees and licensees is abolished.
Facts:
- Rodney Demag worked for a car dealership and had a ten-year arrangement to service the personal vehicles of the general manager of Better Power Equipment, Inc. (BPE).
- As part of this arrangement, Demag would pick up the manager's car from the BPE parking lot and leave his own car there for the day, doing so five to six times a year.
- In January 2009, Demag arrived at BPE, parked in his usual spot, and spoke with the general manager about the required service.
- While returning to his own vehicle, Demag took a step and fell into an uncovered storm drain that had been obscured by recent snowfall, causing him to suffer injuries.
- BPE's general manager knew the storm drain cover would rock in place when driven over and had observed deterioration in the surrounding concrete ring.
- A BPE employee had plowed the area the day before the incident, and the plow was suspected to have dislodged the drain cover.
- Demag was also a potential customer of BPE, having previously had serious discussions with BPE's president about purchasing a tractor and generator.
Procedural Posture:
- Rodney Demag (plaintiff) filed a personal injury lawsuit against Better Power Equipment, Inc. (BPE) in the Vermont superior court (trial court).
- The superior court found that Demag was a licensee on BPE's property, not an invitee.
- Applying the lower standard of care owed to a licensee, the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of BPE.
- Demag (appellant) appealed the superior court's summary judgment decision to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law distinction between invitees and licensees, which dictates different standards of care owed by a landowner, remain the applicable law in Vermont for determining premises liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Dooley, J.
No. The common law distinction between licensees and invitees is abolished in Vermont, and landowners now owe a single duty of reasonable care to all lawful entrants. The court reasons that the traditional tripartite classification system is an anachronism inherited from a feudal English culture that prioritized land ownership over human safety. It has evolved into a 'semantic morass,' leading to arbitrary, rigid, and complex applications that are out of step with modern social values. For instance, a visitor's legal protection should not depend on whether they happen to mention a potential business transaction, as was the case with Demag's interest in buying a tractor. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kermarec and the fact that a majority of states (including all of Vermont's neighbors) have already abandoned the distinction, the court concludes that the common law must evolve. The new standard requires landowners to exercise 'reasonable care in all the circumstances,' with the entrant's status now being just one factor for the jury to consider in determining what is reasonable, not a controlling legal category.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant modernization of Vermont's tort law, bringing its premises liability doctrine in line with that of a majority of U.S. jurisdictions. By eliminating the distinction between licensees and invitees, the court shifts the focus from a rigid, status-based inquiry to a more flexible, fact-intensive analysis of reasonable care and foreseeability. This change simplifies litigation for lawful visitors injured on another's property but may increase uncertainty for landowners, as the question of 'reasonableness' is typically for a jury to decide. The ruling explicitly preserves the traditional, lower duty of care owed to trespassers, indicating the court's incremental approach to reforming common law tort principles.
Unlock the full brief for Demag v. Better Power Equipment, Inc.