LaVallee v. Vermont Motor Inns, Inc.

Supreme Court of Vermont · Torts

TortsNegligencePremises liabilityDirected verdictdirected verdictprima facie negligenceconjecturespeculation

Facts

Plaintiff fell and was injured in his motel room during a power outage at the Howard Johnson Motor Lodge in White River Junction. He sued the motel owner for failing to provide adequate emergency lighting and sued Green Mountain Power for failing to inspect and maintain power lines after a tree fell onto a line during a storm. Plaintiff's evidence against the utility showed only that another utility cleared lines to certain distances and that the tree should have been cut if it had previously been bent, but there was no evidence that it had been bent or that Green Mountain Power failed to inspect or maintain the right-of-way. Against the motel, plaintiff showed prior outages, flashlights at the front desk, emergency hallway lighting, and the availability of inexpensive battery-powered room lighting, but no evidence of prior patron injuries during outages or of motel industry practice requiring such room lighting.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly directed verdicts for the electrical utility and the motel owner where plaintiff's negligence evidence did not fairly and reasonably show breach of duty. More specifically, the court considered whether plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of negligent power-line maintenance by the utility or unreasonable failure by the motel to provide emergency room lighting.

Rule

On review of a directed verdict, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but the verdict is proper unless there is evidence that fairly and reasonably supports the plaintiff's claim. A plaintiff must present direct evidence sufficient for a jury to find negligence; facts generating only conjecture, surmise, or suspicion are insufficient. A motel owner must keep its premises reasonably safe by exercising ordinary reasonable care, measured by foreseeable and unreasonable risk rather than hindsight, and industry custom may be used as a guide to what reasonable care requires.

🔒

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.

During a thunderstorm in rural Ohio, a maple tree fell onto transmission lines operated by North Valley Electric Cooperative, cutting power to a roadside diner in Lima. In the dark, patron Elena Cruz fell on a stair and sued the utility, offering an expert who testified that if the tree had shown prior visible lean damage, it should have been removed, but no witness testified that the tree had actually shown such damage or that the utility had failed to inspect the area.

If the utility moves for a directed verdict at the close of Elena's case, how should the court rule?

Explanation. A directed verdict is proper unless the plaintiff's evidence, viewed favorably to her, fairly and reasonably supports negligence. Evidence that a tree should have been removed if it had prior visible damage does not establish breach where there is no evidence that such damage existed or that inspection or maintenance was inadequate. The majority held that conjecture, surmise, or suspicion is insufficient to make a prima facie negligence case. (Derived from LaVallee v. Vermont Motor Inns, Inc. (n.d.).)