 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gettis v. Green Mountain Economic Development Corp.10/28/2005
on of emotional distress; (5) the Town is immune from claims regarding its governmental function of issuing land use permits; and (6) the Town is immune from claims of punitive damages.
17. Along with their summary judgment motions, defendants submitted a lengthy statement of undisputed material facts. Plaintiffs submitted a counter statement, disputing some of the facts in defendants' statement and agreeing with others. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, using several different rationales. The court granted summary judgment on counts one through five-the contract-related claims-for failure to establish that defendants' actions caused plaintiffs' injury. The court also found that the statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' claims for damages for physical and emotional injuries, which were found in several claims, but especially in the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (claim eight). The court held that plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case against GMEDC for tortious interference with contractual relations, or for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against any defendant (claims six and seven). Finally, the court denied plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages because it found no actual damages. The trial court did not decide whether plaintiffs established a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress or whether the Town would qualify for municipal immunity, as it granted summary judgment on all claims before it reached those issues.
18. Plaintiffs appeal all of the superior court rulings. We conclude that we need reach only two of those decisions-that plaintiffs' claims for non-economic loss are barred by the statute of limitations, and that plaintiffs' claims for economic loss fail for lack of causation-in order to dispose of this appeal.
19. We note that plaintiffs criticize the superior court for failing to state the Rule 56 standard for ruling on a summary judgment motion, and for finding facts that were disputed. The standard for summary judgment is familiar-whether the materials properly before the court "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." V.R.C.P. 56(c)(3). We review a grant of summary judgment using the same standard as the trial court, giving the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences to the non-moving party. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Co., 2004 VT 93, 8, 177 Vt. 215, 862 A.2d 251. As plaintiffs point out, the trial court cannot resolve disputed issues of material fact in ruling on a summary judgment motion. See Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 173 Vt. 202, 211, 790 A.2d 408, 417 (2001). Rule 56 requires, however, a party to submit a statement of the material facts for which the party contends there is "no genuine issue to be tried" and the opposing party to specifically controvert any facts it disputes. V.R.C.P. 56(c)(2). Thus, even if the parties do not stipulate to facts, the submissions allow the trial court to determine which facts are uncontroverted and to render summary judgment on those facts if appropriate. The superior court followed that procedure in the current case. Specifically, we find that the trial court did not make any findings of disputed facts, and, on review, we do not have to make any findings on disputed facts in order to rule as a matter of law.
20. The first issue on appeal is whether plaintiffs can maintain their claim for damages from their physical and emotional injuries. The trial court determined that those claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which requires cla
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|