Joseph L. LeClair v. Hector LeClair

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Hector LeClair in Joseph LeClair’s negligence action arising from a fall from a frost-covered roof. The Court held that, under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A, the open and obvious nature of the danger did not establish as a matter of law that the property owner owed no duty, because a jury could find that he should have anticipated the plaintiff would encounter the danger after being directed to work. The Court also addressed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A land possessor may owe a duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A even when an invitee knows or should recognize the danger, if the possessor should anticipate that the invitee will nevertheless encounter the danger and suffer physical harm. The evidence that defendant, while in a position of authority over plaintiff, ordered plaintiff onto the frost-covered roof created a factual question regarding whether defendant should have anticipated the harm.
2. Summary judgment was improper because genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning defendant's direction and control of plaintiff's work, the parties' relative knowledge and authority, and whether defendant should have anticipated that plaintiff would encounter the dangerous condition.
3. The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend because the proposed employment-based theory was not shown to be prejudicial, obviously frivolous, or brought in bad faith, and the employment issue had already been litigated through discovery and the summary-judgment briefing.
4. Summary judgment could not be awarded on the proposed common-law safe-workplace claim because conflicting evidence concerning who controlled plaintiff's work and the other employment factors created genuine issues of material fact.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the premises-liability claim by concluding that defendant owed plaintiff no duty as a matter of law despite evidence that defendant directed plaintiff to encounter an open and obvious danger.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add an employment-based safe-workplace negligence theory.
3. Whether disputed facts concerning control over plaintiff's work and the parties' employment relationship precluded summary judgment on the proposed common-law employer-liability claim and related workers' compensation issues.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded