John C. Sherburne

In this case, plaintiff Joyce Chamberlain, a guest passenger in defendant Delphia's car, sought damages for injuries sustained in a collision with another vehicle on a steep, narrow hill in Vermont. Under the applicable statute, recovery required proof of gross negligence by the defendant driver. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, could support a jury finding of gross negligence based on the defendant's driving in the center of the road at 30-40 mph on a dangerous hill while distracted and failing to watch for oncoming traffic until it was too late, despite prior knowledge of the road's hazards. The court also held that the sudden emergency doctrine did not apply because the defendant had created the dangerous situation through his own conduct, and other claims of error were not properly preserved.

torts & liability

This case is a contract action by a real estate broker against a bank to recover a $20,000 commission for producing a buyer for the Strong Building Property and for the subsequent sale of that property. The plaintiff alleged he secured Mrs. Peter Handy as a ready, willing, and able purchaser on the listed terms, though the defendants sold instead to Cody; the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on both counts. The trial court denied the defendants' motions for a directed verdict, to set aside the verdict, and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff sufficiently supported the jury's finding on the first count and that the special verdict showed no prejudicial error regarding the second count.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a petition for a writ of mandamus by landowners seeking to compel the Town of Tunbridge and its selectmen to construct and maintain a bridge on a former town road spur that had been washed out by flooding in 1942 and repeatedly damaged thereafter. After the selectmen discontinued the original road in 1951, an appeal led to a county court ruling that discontinuation was improper without providing adequate alternative access; the town then laid out a new road with a ford and later a pent road, followed by another discontinuation of the old site, with appeals from those actions still pending. The court dismissed the petition, holding that mandamus requires both a clear legal right to the relief sought and no adequate alternative remedy, neither of which was shown here because the town had discretion to provide substitute access and the adequacy of the new arrangements was already under review in the pending county court proceedings. The opinion rejected the petitioners' statutory arguments under highway maintenance laws as leading to absurd results that would prevent any relocation or alternative after a bridge failure.

propertyprocedure

This case is a tort action for personal injuries from an automobile collision on a snowy Vermont road in 1952, where the plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by Davis that collided head-on with the defendant's wrecker. The defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that Davis was negligent as a matter of law and that his negligence should be imputed to the plaintiff because Davis was acting as the plaintiff's agent or servant on the trip. The trial court denied the motion, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment after reviewing the defendant's exceptions. The court held that no master-servant relationship existed because Davis, as the car owner, retained the right of control over its operation, so his negligence was not imputable to the plaintiff; it also rejected claims of contributory negligence and procedural errors regarding a jury view of the scene. The core reasoning focused on the test for agency being the right to control the manner of driving, which remained with Davis, and that any issues with the windshield or the view did not require a directed verdict for the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a beneficiary's lawsuit against an insurer to recover double indemnity benefits under a life insurance policy's accidental death provision, which required proof that death resulted solely from external, violent, and accidental means like drowning, independent of other causes. The insured was found dead in shallow marsh water with water in his lungs and no external injuries, though a death certificate noted a possible coronary occlusion as an antecedent factor. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that drowning was the exclusive cause and challenging the admissibility of expert testimony and waiver of proof requirements. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of death by drowning alone, that the insurer had waived strict compliance with proof-of-loss forms through its agents' actions, and that any procedural issues with expert testimony did not prejudice the defendant.

business & regulatory

This case involved a contract dispute in which plaintiff Raymond S. Roberts, Inc. sought payment for car parts and vehicle servicing provided to defendants Enos R. White and Annette J. White from 1947 through 1951. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings supported liability for Annette as well as Enos. Those findings established that the couple jointly operated farming, cattle, and market businesses using a joint bank account, shared profits and losses through their joint estate, and registered all relevant vehicles in Annette's name, allowing the court to infer a partnership or agency relationship. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the timing of motions and exceptions but concluded they did not affect the outcome under the findings.

business & regulatoryprocedure