Lexplug logoLexplug

Langlois v. Town of Proctor

Supreme Court of Vermont
2014 VT 130, 113 A.3d 44, 198 Vt. 137 (2014)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a party undertakes to render services necessary for the protection of another's property, a tort duty of reasonable care arises. If evidence suggests a plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their damages, a trial court commits reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative negligence, which requires apportioning fault between the parties.


Facts:

  • Kathleen Langlois owned a building with commercial and residential space but failed to pay her water bill to the Town of Proctor.
  • Langlois arranged with a representative of the Town for her water service to be disconnected to avoid incurring further expenses.
  • In May 2009, a Town worker went to the property and believed he had turned off the water at an external valve known as a 'curbstop,' but the water supply was not actually shut off.
  • Relying on the Town's undertaking to disconnect the water, Langlois discontinued heating the building for the winter of 2009-2010.
  • During the winter, a pipe that still contained water froze and split under the first floor of the unheated building.
  • The split pipe caused extensive flooding and water damage to the first floor and basement of the building.
  • Langlois did not discover the leak and the resulting damage until August 10, 2010.

Procedural Posture:

  • Kathleen Langlois sued the Town of Proctor in superior court, alleging negligence, breach of contract, consumer fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.
  • The superior court dismissed the consumer fraud and negligent misrepresentation counts.
  • The Town of Proctor moved for summary judgment on the remaining tort and contract claims, which the superior court denied.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial.
  • The jury, answering special interrogatories, found that the Town was negligent and awarded Langlois $64,918.44 in damages, but found that the Town had not breached its contract.
  • The Town of Proctor (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Vermont, and Kathleen Langlois (appellee) cross-appealed.

Locked

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 a trial court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct a jury on comparative negligence when evidence suggests the plaintiff's failure to exercise due care for her own property contributed to the resulting damages?


Opinions:

Majority - Dooley, J.

Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by failing to instruct a jury on comparative negligence when the defendant presents evidence that the plaintiff’s own negligence was a cause of the damages. The Town had a tort duty to Langlois under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 because it undertook to render a service (disconnecting the water) necessary for the protection of her property, and she relied on that undertaking. However, the trial court improperly refused to instruct the jury on comparative negligence, instead giving an instruction only on mitigation of damages. Evidence suggested Langlois may have been negligent by failing to verify the water was disconnected or by not checking on her property for an extended period, which contributed to the harm. The doctrine of comparative negligence, which apportions liability based on relative fault, was the proper framework for the jury to evaluate the conduct of both parties, and the failure to give this instruction was prejudicial error requiring a new trial.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the relationship between the doctrines of comparative negligence and mitigation of damages in Vermont tort law. The court signals a preference for the modern approach, reflected in the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which consolidates the analysis of a plaintiff's pre- and post-injury conduct that exacerbates harm under a single comparative fault framework. This approach avoids the often difficult temporal distinction of when a defendant's tort is 'complete' and a plaintiff's duty to mitigate begins. The ruling establishes that where a plaintiff's lack of care for their own property contributes to the totality of their damages, juries must be instructed to compare the parties' relative fault, rather than treating the plaintiff's conduct as a separate issue of avoidable consequences.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Langlois v. Town of Proctor (2014) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Langlois v. Town of Proctor