SCOVT affirms grant of summary judgment dismissing constitutional claims, denial of new trial and verdict that Plaintiff had not proven the accident caused any injuries. No common benefit interest in criminal prosecution of third party.

Cheryl J. Brown v. State of Vermont, 2018 VT 1 [filed1/12/2018]

EATON, J. Cheryl Brown appeals from a jury verdict finding the State responsible for a motor vehicle accident, but also finding Brown had not proven any resulting injuries and thus was not entitled to any damages. Brown alleges several errors in pre-trial and trial rulings, as well as in the failure to grant her a new trial. We affirm

Before trial, the court granted the State’s motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing Brown’s constitutional claims. The Court dismissed the due process and equal protection claims under the United States Constitution on the basis that Brown had only sued the State, and not Denis personally, and that the State was not a “person” for claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Because Brown’s suit was against the State, and because, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a state is not a “person,” as is required to maintain the claim, summary judgment for the State was proper on her equal protection and due process claims.

The court further ruled that Brown lacked standing to assert any claim based on the State’s failure to prosecute Denis. The court also dismissed the Common Benefits Clause claim because Brown lacked any cognizable interest in the prosecution or discipline of Denis and because her ability to file suit against the State as a result of the accident showed her due process rights were not impeded.

The Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution and the federal Equal Protection Clause differ markedly in language, historical origin, purpose, and development. The purpose of the Common Benefits Clause is to ensure that protections conferred by the State are for “the common benefit of the community” and not just a part of the community. Any potential constitutional tort claim based on a violation of Article 7.3 “must show the denial of a common benefit” due to “disparate and arbitrary treatment when compared to others similarly situated.” Id.

There is no deprivation of a common benefit because Brown has no legally cognizable interest in the prosecution of Denis, or any criminal or disciplinary consequences that may ensue. Summary judgment for the State was proper on Brown’s Common Benefits claim.