Langlois v. Town of Proctor
113 A.3d 44
Vt.2014Background
- Langlois owned a mixed-use building (commercial on first floor, residential second floor) and failed to pay her water bill; the Town allegedly failed to disconnect the water as promised, despite assurances to do so.
- Langlois relied on the Town’s undertaking to disconnect the water and ceased heating the building, causing water to remain in unheated pipes and eventually freeze and burst.
- Damage to the building and basement ensued; the jury found the Town negligent and awarded $64,918.44 to Langlois.
- The superior court denied summary judgment on tort and contract claims but rejected consumer fraud and negligent misrepresentation counts; it declined to give a duty instruction, yet the jury found a contractual duty to disconnect but no contract breach.
- On appeal, the Town challenges duty, failure to give comparative-negligence instruction, and damages instructions; Langlois cross-appeals on failure to instruct on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- The Vermont Supreme Court reverses and remands for a new trial on the comparative-negligence issue, affirms other aspects, and addresses damages and implied-covenant issues only insofar as they relate to remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to disconnect water constituted a duty of care | Langlois relied on § 323 undertaking | Town argues duty was contractual, not tort | Duty found; § 323 applicable |
| Whether comparative negligence should have been instructed | Mitigation relied; enforceable under duty | Comparative negligence governs; permutation of damages | Instruction required on remand (comparative negligence) |
| Damages instruction and measurement | Costs of repair or diminished value appropriate | Damages mismeasured; consider economic waste rule | Remand on damages; instruction not defective as given, but subject to review on remand |
| Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Covenant breached by misrepresentations and bad faith | No viable breach; contract theory flawed | No instruction on implied covenant; remand limited to Town’s negligent claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bean v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 129 Vt. 278 (Vt. 1971) (damages for real property depend on reasonable cost of repair or diminution in value)
- Barber v. LaFromboise, 2006 VT 77 (Vt. 2006) (trial court must instruct on essential issues; no reversible error absent prejudice)
- Carmichael v. Adirondack Bottled Gas Corp., 161 Vt. 200 (Vt. 1993) (covenant of good faith and fair dealing; enforceable as in Restatement)
- Grazulis v. Curtis, 149 Vt. 371 (Vt. 1988) (preservation issue; comparative negligence framework discussed)
- Perry v. Green Mountain Mall, 2004 VT 69 (Vt. 2004) (undertaking duty arising from contract-based care; § 324A / § 323 analysis)
- Smyth v. Twin State Improvement Corp., 116 Vt. 569 (Vt. 1951) (duty arising from undertaking in contracts context; § 323/§ 324A)
- Springfield Hydroelectric Co. v. Copp., 172 Vt. 311 (Vt. 2001) (independence of tort duty from contract; economic losses/import of duties)