Joseph L. LeClair v. Hector LeClair
169 A.3d 743
| Vt. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (age 27) was an experienced roofer hired through his father to work on defendant-grandfather Hector LeClair’s roof; plaintiff arrived to find the stripped roof covered with dew/frost and initially declined to work.
- Defendant (experienced builder/property owner) allegedly ordered plaintiff to begin work despite the frost; plaintiff fell from the second‑story roof and suffered severe injuries.
- Plaintiff sued in negligence (premises liability theory), alleging defendant owed a duty to prevent foreseeable harm by directing him onto the frosty roof; defendant moved for summary judgment arguing no duty, open-and-obvious danger, and assumption of risk.
- Plaintiff responded that defendant acted as the ‘‘ultimate employer’’ and thus owed a duty to provide a safe workplace; he moved to amend the complaint to add employment-based liability and a safe‑workplace count after briefing on summary judgment began.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on premises liability (finding no duty to warn of an open-and-obvious condition) and denied amendment as untimely and futile; the Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landowner owed duty under Restatement §343/§343A when he ordered invitee/worker onto an open-and-obvious dangerous condition | LeClair: ordering him onto the frosty roof placed duty on owner because owner should have anticipated plaintiff would nonetheless encounter harm | Hector: no duty because danger was open/obvious; plaintiff assumed risk and had superior knowledge | Reversed: factual dispute whether owner should have anticipated harm; duty question for jury under §343/§343A |
| Whether plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk such that defendant is entitled to summary judgment | LeClair: his compliance may have been compelled by defendant’s authority; voluntariness is disputed | Hector: plaintiff knew condition and voluntarily went on roof, negating duty | Held: voluntariness is a jury question; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether amendment to add employer/safe‑workplace claim should be allowed after summary judgment briefing | LeClair: amendment pleads employer liability and was fairly raised by defendant’s summary judgment defense; Rule 15(b) and notice support amendment | Hector: amendment is untimely, prejudicial, and futile because plaintiff conceded any contract was with his father | Held: abuse of discretion to deny amendment—issue was squarely litigated in summary judgment and amendment not plainly frivolous |
| Whether, as a matter of law, defendant was not plaintiff’s employer (right-to-control test) | LeClair: factual disputes on control, payment, supervision create triable issue | Hector: facts show plaintiff was hired by son and son supplied tools and supervised; no employment relationship with Hector | Held: factual conflicts prevent resolving employer status on summary judgment; jury must decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Napoli v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 536 F.2d 505 (2d Cir.) (shipowner may be liable where worker had to choose between leaving job or facing employer pressure to continue despite obvious danger)
- Lubrano v. Royal Neth. S.S. Co., 572 F.2d 364 (2d Cir.) (factual dispute as to ship officer directing workers to continue despite unsafe conditions creates jury question under §343A)
- Dos Santos v. Coleta, 987 N.E.2d 1187 (Mass. 2013) (landlord could be liable when tenant forced to choose between job duties and avoiding obvious danger)
- Cracchiolo v. E. Fisheries, Inc., 740 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2014) (reasonableness inquiry where a person may encounter known danger because advantages outweigh risks)
- Gero v. J.W.J. Realty, 757 A.2d 475 (Vt. 2000) (distinguishing conditions that are means of work from conditions of the land in premises liability analysis)
- Landing v. Town of Fairlee, 22 A.2d 179 (Vt.) (common-law duty of master to provide a safe workplace)