Driscoll v. Wright Cut and Clean LLC, 2024 VT 49 [August 2, 2024]
EATON, J. Plaintiff Frank Driscoll appeals a civil division order granting judgment as a matter of law on his negligence claim in favor of defendants Benjamin Wright and Wright Cut and Clean, LLC. Based on the evidence plaintiff presented at trial, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 50 at the close of plaintiff’s case. The court granted defendants’ motion. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law. Because we determine plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence of causation, we conclude judgment as a matter of law was warranted. Accordingly, we affirm.
On July 18, 2019, plaintiff was running in a southerly
direction on the left side of the road, facing into the flow of traffic. At the
same time, defendant Benjamin Wright (driver), an employee of defendant Wright
Cut and Clean, was driving a company truck also in a southerly but on the right
side of the road. The truck was pulling a trailer. As the truck approached plaintiff from behind,
plaintiff looked behind him, and then moved about five feet to his left, toward
the left edge of the road. As the truck passed plaintiff, driver looked in his
side review mirror and saw plaintiff move get struck by the trailer. Plaintiff
was unconscious when police arrived, and he has no memory of the accident.
The causation element of negligence requires sufficient
evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that, but for some negligent action
by the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. Collins v.Thomas, 2007 VT 92, ¶ 8, 182 Vt. 250, 938 A.2d 1208. Evidence of injury
alone is generally insufficient to show causation. Instead, the plaintiff must
“rely on expert testimony” to demonstrate causation unless the circumstances
are plain enough that “only common knowledge and experience are needed to
comprehend it.” Sachs v. Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, 2017 VT 100, ¶ 20,
206 Vt. 157, 179 A.3d 182 The absence of expert testimony or other viable
evidence showing a causal link with the injury precludes a finding that the
plaintiff sufficiently established that element. Bernasconi v. City of Barre,
2019 VT 6, ¶ 12, 209 Vt. 419, 206 A.3d 720; Lasek v. Vt. Vapor, Inc., 2014
VT 33, ¶ 15, 196 Vt. 243, 95 A.3d 447.
Plaintiff put on expert testimony at trial from a forensic
engineer who opined that, at impact, “there wasn’t a four[-] foot safety gap or
more between [plaintiff] and the trailer.” The expert admitted, however, that there was
“no physical evidence to establish where [plaintiff] was located” at any time
before impact, and he was unable to provide conclusions on any causative factor
leading up to the incident. The expert did not “know anything before [impact].”
As such, he was unable to say whether there was in fact a “four[-]foot safety
gap” between plaintiff and the trailer during the time leading up to impact or
if the lack of such a gap, if any, was a causative factor in the collision. And
he did not identify how, if at all, the truck’s speed or position or the
driver’s alleged failure to better warn plaintiff provided any causal link
between driver’s alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injury.
No other witness ever indicated what specific aspect of
driver’s allegedly negligent actions caused plaintiff’s resulting harm. Because
of plaintiff’s admitted inability to recall the incident, he could give no
testimony on the subject. Absent specific evidence of causation, a jury would
have to rely on mere speculation to determine what, if anything, was the causal
link between driver’s actions prior to impact and plaintiff’s resulting injury.
Absent the necessary evidence of causation, judgment as a matter of law must be
affirmed. See Keegan v. Lemieux Sec. Servs., Inc., 2004 VT 97, ¶ 11, 177
Vt. 575, 861 A.2d 1135 (mem.) (recognizing that failure to prove any one
element of negligence claim warrants judgment as matter of law).
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment