251 A.3d 959
Vt.2021Background
- In October 2012 a Milton High School freshman (Blondin) was sexually assaulted at an unsponsored, off‑campus team dinner by fellow football players. Several students later pled guilty to related harassment/hazing offenses; a prior similar assault and a suicide (Peavy) were in the background.
- Blondin sued the Milton Town School District (filed 2017) alleging negligent supervision and violation of the Vermont Public Accommodations Act (VPAA).
- The trial court denied the District’s summary‑judgment motion; a five‑day jury trial produced a verdict awarding Blondin $280,000 and allocating 60% fault to the District and 40% to Blondin; the jury found for the District on the VPAA claim.
- Posttrial the court concluded it should not have submitted comparative negligence to the jury, set aside that portion of the verdict, and required the District to accept an additur (total judgment $466,666) or a new trial; the District accepted the additur conditioned on appeal.
- On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed: it held many of the District’s duty challenges were not preserved, upheld the trial court’s handling of comparative negligence and the additur, rejected Blondin’s evidentiary and VPAA/JMOL arguments, and held punitive damages are not available against a municipal school district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to protect at unsponsored off‑campus team dinner | Blondin: school had duty because a history of hazing/sexual assaults and regular unsupervised team dinners made such assault foreseeable | District: no duty for unsupervised private off‑campus event and assault was unforeseeable; no pure legal issue for appeal | District failed to preserve these appellate challenges: summary‑judgment denial involved disputed facts; JMOL not renewed under V.R.C.P. 50(b); foreseeability was fact‑intensive for the jury |
| Renewal under Rule 50(b) / appealability of summary‑judgment denial | N/A (procedural) | District sought appellate review of pretrial and pre‑verdict rulings | Court barred review: Vermont rule requires post‑verdict renewal of JMOL to preserve sufficiency‑of‑evidence challenges; denial of summary judgment not appealable after verdict except for pure legal questions, which District did not raise |
| Comparative negligence and damages calculation | Blondin: jury’s $280,000 already reflected the comparative‑negligence reduction, so he should receive full $280,000; trial court erred in submitting comparative negligence to the jury | District: award must be reduced by 40% or court should have performed reduction; submission to jury was proper | Trial court did not abuse discretion: it reasonably concluded jury applied comparative reduction to reach $280,000; but sending comparative negligence to jury was erroneous on the facts—court properly set that finding aside and ordered additur, affirmed on appeal |
| VPAA elements, exhaustion, and punitive damages | Blondin: statute requires only (1) unwelcome conduct based on protected characteristic and (2) objective adverse effect on access to education; exhaustion and remedial‑action proof were matters for court, not jury; punitive damages should be available | District: Blondin failed to show motive based on protected class and failed exhaustion; punitive damages barred against municipal entities | Court rejected most of Blondin’s points: he invited or waived many charge objections; jury found he had legitimate basis to avoid exhaustion but ultimately found no VPAA violation; punitive damages unavailable against municipal school district per precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Stopford v. Milton Town Sch. Dist., 209 Vt. 171, 202 A.3d 973 (discussing foreseeability and school duty in student‑on‑student assault context)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift‑Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (Rule 50(b) renewal requirement for post‑verdict JMOL to preserve sufficiency‑of‑evidence challenges)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (limits on appealing denial of summary judgment; distinction between pure legal questions and fact disputes)
- Town Highway No. 20, 191 Vt. 231, 45 A.3d 54 (municipalities immune from punitive damages absent clear legislative directive)
- Washington v. Pierce, 179 Vt. 318, 895 A.2d 173 (VPAA hostile‑environment standard and exhaustion framework)
- Stratton Corp. v. Engelberth Constr., Inc., 199 Vt. 289, 123 A.3d 393 (denial of summary judgment generally not appealable after a full trial)
- Barber v. LaFromboise, 180 Vt. 150, 908 A.2d 436 (allocation of causal negligence is a jury question; recovery reduced proportionally)