Sheehan v. Nims

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Torts

Tortsnegligencestatutory violationrebuttable presumptionnegligence per seVermont lawproximate causejury question

Facts

The plaintiff's intestate died when the Ford car in which he was riding struck the left rear end of the defendants' stationary truck on a Vermont highway more than thirty minutes after sunset. The truck was parked well to the right, leaving about twelve feet of pavement open, but it lacked the statutory left-side clearance lamp required during that time period. It was twilight rather than fully dark, some drivers had not yet turned on their lights, and the truck driver testified he had hung a lighted red kerosene lantern near the left rear corner while briefly leaving to get a tool. The trial court instructed the jury that the absence of the statutory clearance light was negligence, leaving only proximate cause and contributory negligence for the jury.

Issue

Under Vermont law, may a court instruct the jury that violation of the statutory clearance-light requirement is negligence as a matter of law? Or must the jury decide whether the statutory violation's presumption of negligence was rebutted by the surrounding circumstances?

Rule

In Vermont, violation of a statutory safety regulation is not negligence per se. Instead, the violation creates a rebuttable presumption or prima facie case of negligence, which may be overcome by proof of attendant circumstances sufficient to persuade the jury that a reasonable and prudent person would have acted similarly; whether that presumption is rebutted is ordinarily a jury question.

🔒

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.

At 6:10 p.m. in Brattleboro, Vermont, Owen Pike stopped his wide produce truck on the shoulder line of a straight state road while he checked a loose strap. Vermont law required the truck to display a left-side marker light at that hour, but the light was broken; Owen instead placed a bright battery lantern near the rear corner, and approaching traffic had an unobstructed lane to pass.

In a negligence action arising after another driver clipped the truck, how should the court treat Owen's violation of the lighting statute?

Explanation. Under the Vermont rule applied by the majority, violation of a safety statute does not amount to negligence per se. It creates a prima facie or rebuttable presumption of negligence that may be overcome by attendant circumstances, and if such evidence exists the negligence issue remains for the jury. (Derived from Sheehan v. Nims (n.d.).)