O'CONNOR v. City of Rutland

Supreme Court of Vermont

O'CONNOR v. City of Rutland

772 A.2d 551, 172 Vt. 570, 2001 Vt. LEXIS 145

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedApril 13, 2001

Docket00-072

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 772 A.2d 551 (O'CONNOR v. City of Rutland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'CONNOR v. City of Rutland, 772 A.2d 551, 172 Vt. 570, 2001 Vt. LEXIS 145 (Vt. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff Jean O’Connor * appeals from the Rutland Superior Court’s grant of defendant City of Rutland’s motion to dismiss her complaint under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that defendant is immune from suit under our municipal immunity doctrine. Plaintiff urges us to reconsider, and overrule, Hillerby v. Town of Colchester, 167 Vt. 270, 706 A.2d 446 (1997). We decline to do so and affirm.

In October 1996, plaintiff’s daughter was struck and killed by a motorist in the City of Rutland while she was crossing the street. Plaintiff brought suit against the City under Vermont’s Wrongful Death Act, 14 V.S.A. §§ 1491-1492, seeking damages. Plaintiffs complaint alleged — and in the procedural posture of this case, we accept as true — that the City was negligent in failing to maintain adequate crosswalks and in failing to provide adequate street lighting. Defendant moved to dismiss, claiming immunity because maintaining and designing streets, street lighting, and crosswalks are governmental functions, and thus, the City is immune under our municipal immunity doctrine as recently explicated in Hillerby and McMurphy v. State, 171 Vt. 9, 757 A.2d 1043 (2000). The trial court granted defendant’s motion; plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff does not contest that the trial court was correct under the existing municipal immunity doctrine.

In the past decisions of this Court, we have recognized the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, and we have noted that although we are not “slavish adherents” to this doctrine, neither do we lightly overturn recent precedent, especially where the precedent could be changed easily by legislation at any time. State v. Berini, 167 Vt. 565, 566, 701 A.2d 1055, 1056 (1997) (mem.); Chittenden v. Waterbury Ctr. Cmty. Church, 168 Vt. 478, 490-91, 726 A.2d 20, 29 (1998). Such is the case here. In Hillerby, the majority of this Court decided that abrogating the governmental/proprietary distinction in our municipal immunity doctrine was for the Legislature and not the courts, 167 *571 Vt. at 272, 706 A.2d at 446, partly because the Legislature’s “fact-finding and problem-solving process is better suited for the task in this area of the law,” id. at 276, 706 A.2d at 449. Thus, the considerations that underlie Hillerby also weigh against overturning it, even assuming that current members of the Court would have reached a different decision.

Affirmed.

*

Plaintiff brought suit individually, on behalf of her daughter’s estate, and on behalf of Sierra Pomainville and Carol O’Connor, as next friend.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiff Jean O’Connor * appeals from the Rutland Superior Court’s grant of defendant City of Rutland’s motion to dismiss her complaint under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that defendant is immune from suit under our municipal immunity doctrine. Plaintiff urges us to reconsider, and overrule, Hillerby v. Town of Colchester, 167 Vt. 270, 706 A.2d 446 (1997). We decline to do so and affirm.

In October 1996, plaintiff’s daughter was struck and killed by a motorist in the City of Rutland while she was crossing the street. Plaintiff brought suit against the City under Vermont’s Wrongful Death Act, 14 V.S.A. §§ 1491-1492, seeking damages. Plaintiffs complaint alleged — and in the procedural posture of this case, we accept as true — that the City was negligent in failing to maintain adequate crosswalks and in failing to provide adequate street lighting. Defendant moved to dismiss, claiming immunity because maintaining and designing streets, street lighting, and crosswalks are governmental functions, and thus, the City is immune under our municipal immunity doctrine as recently explicated in Hillerby and McMurphy v. State, 171 Vt. 9, 757 A.2d 1043 (2000). The trial court granted defendant’s motion; plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff does not contest that the trial court was correct under the existing municipal immunity doctrine.

In the past decisions of this Court, we have recognized the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, and we have noted that although we are not “slavish adherents” to this doctrine, neither do we lightly overturn recent precedent, especially where the precedent could be changed easily by legislation at any time. State v. Berini, 167 Vt. 565, 566, 701 A.2d 1055, 1056 (1997) (mem.); Chittenden v. Waterbury Ctr. Cmty. Church, 168 Vt. 478, 490-91, 726 A.2d 20, 29 (1998). Such is the case here. In Hillerby, the majority of this Court decided that abrogating the governmental/proprietary distinction in our municipal immunity doctrine was for the Legislature and not the courts, 167 *571 Vt. at 272, 706 A.2d at 446, partly because the Legislature’s “fact-finding and problem-solving process is better suited for the task in this area of the law,” id. at 276, 706 A.2d at 449. Thus, the considerations that underlie Hillerby also weigh against overturning it, even assuming that current members of the Court would have reached a different decision.

Affirmed.

*

Plaintiff brought suit individually, on behalf of her daughter’s estate, and on behalf of Sierra Pomainville and Carol O’Connor, as next friend.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

772 A.2d 551, 172 Vt. 570, 2001 Vt. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnor-v-city-of-rutland-vt-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack