Langlois v. Proctor

Vermont Supreme Court · Torts

Tortsnegligent undertakingcomparative negligenceproperty damagesgood faith and fair dealingdutyundertakingreliance

Facts

Plaintiff owned a building with commercial space downstairs and an apartment upstairs and failed to pay her water bill to the Town. She testified that a Town representative promised to disconnect the water service, and she relied on that promise by discontinuing heat to the building. The water allegedly was not actually shut off, a pipe froze and split under the first floor, and the first floor and basement flooded, causing extensive property damage. The Town presented evidence that a worker believed he had shut the water off at the curb stop and disputed that any promise to disconnect had been made.

Issue

Whether the Town owed plaintiff a tort duty for negligent failure to disconnect the water under a negligent-undertaking theory, whether the jury should have been instructed on comparative negligence rather than only mitigation of damages, whether the damages instruction was erroneous for failing to require diminution-in-value evidence, and whether plaintiff was entitled to a separate instruction on breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Rule

A defendant who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services necessary for the protection of another's person or property is liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 for physical harm caused by failure to exercise reasonable care if the risk is increased or the harm occurs because of the other's reliance. In Vermont negligence cases, plaintiff's negligent conduct relating to protection of her own property may require a comparative-negligence instruction, and in this case comparative negligence rather than mitigation governed the Town's theory. For tort damage to real property, cost of repair is an appropriate measure when reasonable; the proportionality of repair cost to pre-injury value is part of the general reasonableness inquiry, but the party challenging repair-cost evidence bears the burden of producing contrary evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Bangor, Maine, Elena Ruiz called North Harbor Utilities after closing a vacant duplex for the winter. A utility clerk told Elena that the company would send a crew that day to shut off water service, and Elena left town without arranging for anyone to keep the heat on. The crew went to the property but mistakenly closed the wrong curb valve, and water remained on; a pipe later burst and flooded the first floor.

If Elena sues North Harbor Utilities in negligence for the property damage, what is the strongest basis for finding a duty?

Explanation. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, one who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services necessary for protection of another’s person or property may be liable for physical harm caused by negligent performance if the risk is increased or the harm occurs because of the other’s reliance. The majority held that an undertaking to disconnect water, coupled with reliance and resulting physical property damage, can support tort duty even in a contractual setting. The other choices either demand too much or incorrectly state that a contractual context defeats the tort duty. (Derived from Langlois v. Proctor (n.d.).)