Quick Summary
Kathleen Langlois (plaintiff) owned a building in the Town of Proctor (defendant) and faced significant property damage due to burst water pipes after the town failed to shut off water as agreed. Langlois sued for negligence and breach of contract. The jury awarded her damages for negligence but found no contract breach.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on comparative negligence grounds, instructing that cost-of-repair damages are reasonable unless disproportionate to property value.
Facts of the Case
Kathleen Langlois (plaintiff) owned a building in the Town of Proctor (defendant). She fell behind on water bill payments, and an agreement was made that the town would shut off the water to prevent further charges. Relying on this agreement, Langlois also turned off the building’s heat.
However, the town failed to shut off the water, resulting in frozen and burst pipes, causing significant damage to the building. Langlois filed a negligence lawsuit against the town.
The jury found that a contract existed between Langlois and Proctor concerning water service termination but concluded that the town did not breach this contract. Instead, they found the town negligent and awarded damages to Langlois.
Procedural Posture and History
- Langlois filed a lawsuit with counts including negligence and breach of contract against the Town of Proctor.
- The town moved for summary judgment, which was denied by the superior court for negligence and contract claims.
- The jury trial resulted in a verdict for Langlois on negligence but not on breach of contract.
- The Town of Proctor appealed the decision.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the Town of Proctor was negligent in failing to turn off the water service as agreed upon, and whether it breached a contract or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Langlois.
Rule of Law
One who undertakes to render services to another is subject to liability for physical harm resulting from failure to exercise reasonable care to perform the undertaking, if such failure increases the risk of harm, or the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking (Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 323).
Reasoning and Analysis
The court concluded that there was a duty based on the town’s undertaking to disconnect the water service and Langlois’s reliance on this undertaking. Even though the jury found no breach of contract, they did find negligence on part of the town, leading to Langlois’s damages.
The Vermont Supreme Court held that comparative negligence should have been considered and remanded for a new trial on this basis.
The court also clarified that cost-of-repair damages are appropriate unless they are disproportionate to the property’s value, placing the burden of disproving their reasonableness on the party challenging them.
Conclusion
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded due to the trial court’s failure to instruct on comparative negligence but affirmed in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- The duty of care can arise from an undertaking to perform a service, even if it is also a contractual obligation.
- Comparative negligence should be considered when both parties may have contributed to the harm.
- Cost-of-repair damages are not unreasonable unless shown to be disproportionate to property value.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What determines the reasonableness of care in a service undertaking?
The reasonableness of care is evaluated based on what an ordinarily prudent person would do under similar circumstances. This includes factors such as the potential hazard, the likelihood of harm, and the difficulty of taking precautions.
- For example: A cleaner is expected to put up a ‘wet floor’ sign after mopping to prevent customers from slipping – this is a simple precaution an ordinarily prudent person would take.
How does comparative negligence factor into damage awards?
In jurisdictions with comparative negligence laws, a plaintiff’s compensation may be reduced by a percentage equal to their fault in contributing to the harm. It ensures that liability is shared fairly based on each party’s responsibility for the incident.
- For example: If a pedestrian jaywalks and is hit by a driver speeding, both may be found partially at fault, and any award to the pedestrian might be reduced proportionally.
When are cost-of-repair damages considered disproportionate in property cases?
Cost-of-repair damages may be deemed disproportionate when repairs approach or exceed the property’s market value. The court may opt instead for diminution in value as the measure of damages.
- For example: If hail damages an old roof, and repair costs are nearly as much as the entire house’s worth, replacing the roof might be deemed disproportionate.
References
Was this case brief helpful?