Jay Bernasconi v. City of Barre: Hope Cemetery
206 A.3d 720
| Vt. | 2019Background
- In spring 2014 Jay Bernasconi visited Hope Cemetery (owned by City of Barre) and fell into an unmarked foot-sized hole, injuring his knee; he returned the next day and learned cemetery workers knew of the hole and planned to fill it.
- Holes/sinkholes commonly form at the cemetery due to disturbed earth from grave digging, rain, mowing, and burrowing animals.
- City’s inspection practice relied on on-site observations by maintenance staff during routine mowing and grounds work; workers sometimes saw but did not report or immediately fix holes.
- Bernasconi sued the City (premises liability/negligence) alleging failure to eliminate or warn of the dangerous condition.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding plaintiff had not produced evidence that the City knew or should have known of the hole such that its negligence caused the injury.
- On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding plaintiff failed to show causation because there was no evidence how long the hole had existed and thus no basis to infer the City would have discovered it with different inspection practices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City breached a duty to inspect/repair cemetery grounds | Bernasconi: Holes frequently form; the City had notice/constructive notice and breached by not conducting regular, detailed inspections | City: No sufficient evidence of notice or breach; inspection practices reasonable and relied on staff observations | The court assumed arguendo a possible breach but resolved case on causation—breach not proved to have caused injury |
| Whether the City had actual or constructive notice of this hole before the accident | Bernasconi: Workers knew about holes generally and knew of this hole the next day, supporting inference they knew earlier | City: No direct evidence they knew before the accident; post-accident knowledge insufficient to prove prior notice | Post-accident awareness and general practices were insufficient to permit a reasonable inference of prior notice; inference would be mere speculation |
| Whether causation is established (that City’s alleged negligence caused the injury) | Bernasconi: A jury could infer causation because holes regularly form and reasonable inspection would have discovered this hole | City: No evidence how long hole existed, so cannot show it would have been found even with more diligent inspections | Held for City: absent evidence of how long the hole existed, plaintiff cannot prove the City’s inspection practices proximately caused the injury |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Bernasconi: Issues of foreseeability and duty are factual and should go to jury | City: No triable issue on causation; summary judgment warranted | Summary judgment affirmed because plaintiff failed to produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find causation |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Pallito, 204 Vt. 375, 169 A.3d 210 (summ. judgment standard and appellate review)
- Provost v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc., 179 Vt. 545, 890 A.2d 97 (appellate review of summary judgment)
- Demag v. Better Power Equip., Inc., 197 Vt. 176, 102 A.3d 1101 (elements of negligence/premises liability)
- Collins v. Thomas, 182 Vt. 250, 938 A.2d 1208 (plaintiff’s burden to prove defendant caused harm; proximate cause may be decided as matter of law)
- Fuller v. Rutland, 122 Vt. 284, 171 A.2d 58 (speculation/conjecture insufficient to support verdict)
- Maciejko v. Lunenberg Fire Dist. No. 2, 171 Vt. 542, 758 A.2d 811 (no evidence of duration of condition defeats causation where maintenance schedule hypothetical)