Spaulding v. Shea

• Court: Vermont Superior Court
• Decided: June 12, 2024
• Docket: 22-cv-4457
• Status: Published

Opinion

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Washington Unit Case No. 22-CV-04457 65 State Street Montpelier VT 05602 802-828-2091 www.vermontjudiciary.org

Edward Spaulding et al v. Aron Shea et al

Ruling on the Spauldings’ Motion to Reconsider and to Amend

On February 5, 2024, the Court granted the Sheas’ motion for partial summary

judgment on the Spauldings’ claim of grossly negligent mowing because, in opposition to

the motion, the Spauldings, who had the ultimate burden of proof, failed to come forward

with evidence demonstrating a triable issue that mowing by the Sheas caused the

Spauldings’ water line to break. Everyone agreed that the issue of causation required

expert support, and the Court ruled in detail that the Spaulding expert’s testimony was

impermissibly speculative. The Spauldings then filed a motion to reconsider and to

amend the complaint to recast the claim of gross negligence as one of ordinary

negligence. Their counsel later withdrew, successor counsel eventually appeared, and

the parties completed briefing on the motion in earnest.

“The standard for granting [a motion to reconsider] is strict, and reconsideration

will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or

data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be

expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Latouche v. North Country Union

High School Dist., 131 F. Supp. 2d 568, 569 (D. Vt. 2001) (quoting Shrader v. CSX

Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “[A] motion to reconsider should not be

granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Id.

Order Page 1 of 3 22-CV-04457 Edward Spaulding et al v. Aron Shea et al While the above precedents inform the Court’s review, as Rule 54(b) provides, the

Court retains extremely broad discretion to reconsider its interlocutory orders. Vt. R.

Civ. P. 54(b) (interlocutory orders “subject to revision at any time” prior to entry of final

judgment); see Drumheller, 185 Vt. at 432. A court should not hesitate to revisit a ruling

that has been issued in error. As Justice Jackson famously noted: “I see no reason why I

should be consciously wrong today because I was unconsciously wrong yesterday.”

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U.S. 611, 639-40 (1948) (Jackson,

J., dissenting).

In this instance, the Spauldings have not convinced the Court that its prior Order

was erroneous or come forward with any valid basis for reconsideration. They merely

relitigate the issue of causation that was fully briefed by the parties in the course of

summary judgment proceedings. The Court ruled on that matter in detail, concluding

that the Spauldings’ expert’s testimony was too speculative to demonstrate a triable

issue as to causation. The Spauldings disagree with that ruling, but they point out

nothing that the Court overlooked in arriving at that conclusion. Their motion to

reconsider is denied on that ground.

It is unclear, following the appearance of successor counsel, whether the

Spauldings continue to seek to amend the complaint to recast the claim of gross

negligence as one of ordinary negligence. If they do, however, that request also is denied.

If the Spauldings sought to assert such a claim, they should have done so long before

now. More importantly, the fundamental causation defect, as addressed in the summary

judgment decision, would have been no different if the claim had been ordinary rather

than gross negligence. The standard of causation is the same. Under such

Order Page 2 of 3 22-CV-04457 Edward Spaulding et al v. Aron Shea et al circumstances, the amendment would be denied as futile. See Perkins v. Windsor Hosp.

Corp., 142 Vt. 305, 313 (1982) (amendment may be denied if it (1) would result in undue

delay; (2) is brought in bad faith; (3) would result in unfair prejudice to the opposing

party; or (4) would be futile).

Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Spauldings’ motion for reconsideration and to

amend is denied.

Electronically signed on Wednesday, May 29, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

_______________________ Timothy B. Tomasi Superior Court Judge

Order Page 3 of 3 22-CV-04457 Edward Spaulding et al v. Aron Shea et al