LaVallee v. Vermont Motor Inns, Inc.
153 Vt. 80, 569 A.2d 1073, 1989 Vt. LEXIS 233 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a prima facie case of negligence sufficient to overcome a motion for directed verdict, a plaintiff must present specific evidence demonstrating that the defendant breached a duty of care by acting unreasonably in proportion to a foreseeable danger, and cannot rely on mere conjecture or surmise.
Facts:
- On the night of September 5, 1985, a power outage occurred in White River Junction, Vermont.
- During the power outage, the plaintiff fell and injured himself in his room at the Howard Johnson Motor Lodge.
- The power failure was caused by an elm tree, located about twenty feet from the power line on an embankment along Route 5, falling across the line during a heavy rain storm.
- The Howard Johnson Motor Lodge had experienced previous power failures in past years and provided flashlights at the front desk for emergencies, with emergency lighting available in the motel hallways.
- Inexpensive battery-powered lighting fixtures were available at the time of the incident and could have been installed in motel rooms.
- The general manager of Vermont Motor Inns, the motel owner, testified that in ten years in the industry and his travels, he had never seen emergency lighting provided in a motel room.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the owner of the motel (Howard Johnson Motor Lodge) and the electrical power company (Green Mountain Power) in the trial court, alleging negligent failure to provide adequate emergency lighting and negligent failure to inspect and maintain power lines, respectively.
- At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the trial court granted both defendants’ motions for a directed verdict.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's 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:
Did the plaintiff present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence against an electric utility for failing to maintain its power lines and against a motel owner for failing to provide adequate emergency lighting, such that the trial court's grant of a directed verdict for both defendants was improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Morse, J.
No, the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence against either defendant, and thus the trial court's directed verdicts were proper. Regarding defendant Green Mountain Power, the court found that even assuming a duty of care was owed to non-customers like the plaintiff, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate even ordinary negligence. Plaintiff's expert offered conjecture that 'if' the tree had been bent from a previous storm, it should have been cut, but no evidence was presented to show the tree had been previously bent or that Green Mountain Power failed to properly maintain or regularly inspect the rights-of-way around its lines. The court cited Marshall v. Milton Water Corp. to emphasize that a plaintiff's burden of proof requires direct evidence, not facts generating only conjecture, surmise, or suspicion. Regarding defendant Howard Johnson Motor Lodge, the court acknowledged the owner's duty to keep its premises reasonably safe. However, applying the 'true test of negligence'—what a careful and prudent person would do under like circumstances—the court found the evidence insufficient as a matter of law. While the motel knew of past outages and could have installed emergency lights, there was no evidence of prior patron injuries during outages, making the probability of such an injury 'extremely slim.' The court reasoned that negligence involves an 'unreasonable risk' and conduct 'unreasonable in proportion to the danger.' Although hindsight might suggest precautions, the defendant's conduct was not, as a matter of law, unreasonable given the danger. The court also considered industry custom, noting no witness knew of any motel providing in-room emergency lighting, which serves as a useful guide for reasonably prudent conduct unless clearly inappropriate under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the evidentiary standards for proving negligence, particularly against utility companies and property owners. It reinforces that speculative evidence, even from an expert, is insufficient to overcome a directed verdict and that the plaintiff bears a substantial burden to present specific facts demonstrating a breach of duty. The ruling also underscores the importance of foreseeability and the 'unreasonable risk' standard in premises liability, suggesting that a property owner is not an insurer and is not obligated to guard against highly improbable harms, especially when current industry custom does not support the suggested precaution.
