L'Esperance v. Benware

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict awarding tenant-plaintiffs compensatory and exemplary damages after they rented a property with contaminated water and serious structural and electrical deficiencies. The court held that the evidence supported negligence, that renting property in violation of law could constitute a violation of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, and that exemplary damages were supported by evidence of reckless or wanton disregard for the tenants' rights. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees based on the common core of facts underlying the claims.

Holdings

1. The evidence fairly and reasonably supported the jury's finding that the landlord breached a duty to provide safe and potable water and that the breach proximately caused plaintiffs' injuries; therefore, denial of judgment as a matter of law and a new trial was proper.
2. A landlord may commit a deceptive act prohibited by the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act by renting property to a tenant when the property violates applicable law, and the landlord's lack of knowledge of the violations is not a defense.
3. The evidence supported submission of exemplary damages to the jury because the landlord's conduct could reasonably be found to demonstrate reckless or wanton disregard for plaintiffs' safety and rights.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees based on a lodestar calculation without reducing the award claim by claim or for alleged limited success, disproportionality to damages, or the landlord's financial hardship.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the landlord negligently failed to provide safe and potable drinking water and that the breach proximately caused plaintiffs' injuries.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on liability under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act for renting property in violation of law.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's award of exemplary damages under the Consumer Fraud Act.
4. Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney's fees under the Consumer Fraud Act, including fees attributable to claims arising from a common core of facts and despite plaintiffs' dismissal of some claims and the landlord's alleged financial hardship.

Disposition

affirmed