Katherine Heffernan v. State
187 A.3d 1149
Vt.2018Background
- In May 2013 Katherine Heffernan, then an inmate at Chittenden County Correctional Facility, sued corrections officer Tracy Holliman in 2015 alleging he used his authority to groom, bribe, and arrange opportunities to have sexual contact with her (common-law assault and battery and § 1983 claims). The State was not named as a defendant.
- Heffernan notified the State so it could elect to defend Holliman under 3 V.S.A. § 1101; the State reviewed the complaint and declined to defend, concluding the alleged acts fell outside the scope of employment.
- Holliman was served by publication, did not appear, and a default judgment was entered for Heffernan; the court awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
- Heffernan then sued the State seeking (1) indemnification of the judgment against Holliman and (2) vicarious liability of the State for Holliman’s acts. The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The trial court dismissed both claims: indemnification was unavailable because indemnity under 12 V.S.A. § 5606 excludes judgments arising from willful misconduct (and the alleged sexual assault was willful misconduct), and sovereign immunity under 12 V.S.A. § 5601(e)(6) bars claims arising from assault and battery, precluding vicarious liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must indemnify Holliman for the judgment against him | Heffernan: State wrongly declined to defend Holliman under § 1101, so it must indemnify as insurer | State: Heffernan lacks standing to challenge nondefense; even if defended, indemnity barred for gross negligence/willful misconduct | Denied — indemnification excluded because alleged sexual assault constitutes willful misconduct, and § 5606(c)(1) bars indemnity |
| Whether the State is vicariously liable for Holliman’s conduct | Heffernan: Holliman acted within scope of employment; employment aided the misconduct so State should be liable | State: Sovereign immunity and statutory scope limits bar liability; alleged acts fall outside recoverable claims | Denied — assault/battery claim is excluded from State liability under § 5601(e)(6), preserving sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchwood Land Co. v. Krizan, 115 A.3d 1009 (Vt. 2015) (motion to dismiss standard and de novo review)
- State v. Therrien, 38 A.3d 1129 (Vt. 2011) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Thompson, 807 A.2d 454 (Vt. 2002) (analysis begins with plain statutory language)