Buxton v. Springfield Lodge No. 679, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. and Merrill
99 A.3d 171
Vt.2014Background
- Plaintiff (Lodge administrator and party guest) was injured during a fight at a New Year’s Eve party at Springfield Lodge No. 679; the fight involved defendants Danny Snide and Robert Merrill, Jr.
- Robert Merrill, Sr., the Lodge governor (an unpaid volunteer), and his spouse were present; Merrill, Sr. intervened at times but did not prevent the fight that caused plaintiff’s injury.
- Plaintiff alleged Merrill, Sr. had a duty to prevent the fight or warn staff based on his role as governor and chair of the House Committee; plaintiff pleaded both individual negligence against Merrill, Sr. and vicarious liability (respondeat superior) against the Lodge.
- At summary judgment the court dismissed individual claims against Merrill, Sr.; the Lodge’s respondeat-superior claims based on Merrill, Sr. were allowed to go to trial but the trial court later granted judgment as a matter of law for the Lodge on those claims.
- The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed (1) the summary judgment dismissal of Merrill, Sr. and (2) the Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law for the Lodge, and affirmed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Merrill, Sr. (governor) owed plaintiff an affirmative duty to prevent the fight or warn staff | Merrill argued his duties as governor/House Committee chair created an undertaking to protect guests and warn staff | Merrill/Lodge argued bylaws and orientation guide do not impose an on-the-spot duty; generally no affirmative duty to control third parties | Court: No duty shown; summary judgment for Merrill, Sr. affirmed |
| Whether Lodge is vicariously liable for Merrill, Sr.’s alleged negligence (respondeat superior) | Lodge should be liable for governor’s negligence because of his official role | Lodge argued vicarious liability requires agent tort/duty; no individual duty established so Lodge cannot be vicariously liable | Court: Because Merrill, Sr. owed no duty, Lodge cannot be held vicariously liable; judgment as matter of law affirmed |
| Whether governor undertook a duty under Restatement §324A by voluntarily assuming protective responsibilities | Plaintiff relied on orientation guide and bylaws to show an undertaking to protect guests | Defendants said bylaws and guide only authorize after-the-fact discipline; no undertaking to prevent or warn | Court: No sufficient undertaking shown; §324A theory fails |
| Whether Merrill, Sr.’s status as a social patron precludes an officer-duty finding at trial | Plaintiff argued an officer can be a patron and still have duty to act or warn | Defendants pointed to uncontested trial evidence that Merrill, Sr. was a social patron that night and had no active supervisory role while socializing | Court: Even if bylaws could impose duty, undisputed evidence that Merrill, Sr. was a patron that night defeats finding of an enforceable duty in that incident |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Forrest, 176 Vt. 476 (2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Kennery v. State, 191 Vt. 44 (2011) (application of Restatement §324A to police undertaking)
- Endres v. Endres, 185 Vt. 63 (2008) (existence of duty is primarily a legal question)
- Rubin v. Town of Poultney, 168 Vt. 624 (1998) (no negligence action absent duty of care)
- Sabia v. State, 164 Vt. 293 (1995) (use of statute to define undertaken duty)
- Daniels v. Parker, 119 Vt. 348 (1956) (agent and principal may be jointly liable for agent’s negligence)
- Fairchild Square Co. v. Green Mountain Bagel Bakery, Inc., 163 Vt. 433 (1995) (corporate employers not liable absent negligent person covered by respondeat superior)