Lussier v. Bessette
189 Vt. 95, 2010 VT 104, 16 A.3d 580 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For concerted action liability to attach to members of a group for the tortious act of one member, the other members must have knowledge of the specific circumstances rendering the act tortious or provide substantial assistance knowing that the conduct constitutes a breach of duty.
Facts:
- Rene Lussier, Anthony Bessette, and Adam Reed (defendants) went hunting with Collin Wens.
- The group agreed to a "driving" hunt, where defendants would act as "pushers" to flush deer toward Wens, the designated "sitter."
- By agreement, Wens was positioned in a farm field at the corner of Rejean Lussier's woodlot.
- From their positions in the woods, the defendants could not see Wens or a nearby tractor where Rejean Lussier was seated.
- While waiting, Wens shouldered his rifle, disengaged the safety, placed his finger on the trigger, and scanned his surroundings through the scope.
- Wens saw the tractor through his scope immediately before his rifle discharged, firing a bullet that struck and killed Rejean Lussier, who was 240 yards away.
- The defendants were aware Wens was a novice hunter but also knew he had completed a hunter's safety course.
- Wens's handling of the rifle violated several basic rules of hunting safety.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Rejean Lussier (plaintiff) filed a wrongful death action in a Vermont trial court against Rene Lussier, Anthony Bessette, and Adam Reed (defendants).
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding no basis for liability.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment 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 participating in a group hunting plan, without knowledge of another hunter's specific and unforeseeable reckless actions, subject the group members to concerted action liability for a death caused by that hunter?
Opinions:
Majority - Reiber, C.J.
No. Participating in a group hunting plan does not subject the members to concerted action liability for the unforeseeable, tortious acts of another member when they lack knowledge of the specific conduct that constitutes a breach of duty. The court analyzed liability under the three prongs of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876. First, there was no "common design" because defendants lacked the requisite knowledge of the circumstances of Wens's conduct; they did not know his specific location, his surroundings, or that he was handling his rifle in a reckless manner. Second, defendants could not have given "substantial assistance" knowing Wens's conduct was a breach of duty, because they were unaware of his flagrant hunting violations. Third, defendants' own conduct (walking through the woods) was not a breach of a separate duty owed to Mr. Lussier and was not the proximate cause of his death. The court concluded that Wens's reckless actions were not a foreseeable consequence of the agreed-upon hunting plan, and therefore, concerted action liability cannot be imposed on the other members of the party.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of concerted action liability under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876, particularly in the context of group recreational activities. It establishes that mere participation in a group is insufficient to create liability for the actions of another member; instead, a plaintiff must show that the other members had knowledge of the specific, tortious conduct or the circumstances creating the foreseeable risk. This ruling protects individuals from being held vicariously liable for the unforeseeable and independent negligence of others in a shared endeavor, reinforcing principles of individual fault over collective responsibility in tort law.
