Zachariah Blondin v. Milton Town School District et al.

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a judgment arising from a high-school football player’s negligent-supervision claim against the Milton Town School District after he was assaulted by teammates at an off-campus team dinner. The court addressed preservation of challenges to the denial of summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law, foreseeability and school duties, comparative negligence, damages, evidentiary issues, the Vermont Public Accommodations Act, and punitive damages.

Holdings

1. A party generally may not appeal the denial of summary judgment after a full jury trial when the asserted error depends on disputed facts; the District's foreseeability and duty argument was fact-dependent and therefore not reviewable.
2. Under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), renewal of a motion for judgment as a matter of law after entry of judgment is necessary to appeal from denial of the pre-verdict motion; the District's failure to renew its motion foreclosed appellate review of its lack-of-duty arguments.
3. The trial court properly set aside the jury's comparative-negligence finding because no reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Blondin was contributorily negligent in attending the team dinner or in failing to anticipate the sexual assault.
4. The trial court reasonably determined that the jury's $280,000 award already incorporated the jury's comparative-negligence calculation, and the court properly granted an additur of $186,666 for a total judgment of $466,666 after setting aside the comparative-negligence finding.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting selected excerpts from Blondin's school disciplinary records to rebut his testimony that the assault changed him from a sweet child into a mean person.
6. The trial court did not err in denying Blondin judgment as a matter of law on his VPAA claim or in instructing the jury on the claim; viewed favorably to the District, a reasonable juror could find that the assault was not based on Blondin's gender or perceived sexual orientation.
7. Punitive damages are unavailable against a municipally funded school district absent a clear legislative directive authorizing them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District could appeal the denial of summary judgment based on its fact-dependent argument that Blondin's assault was unforeseeable and therefore gave rise to no duty.
2. Whether the District preserved its challenge to the denial of judgment as a matter of law by failing to renew its motion after the jury verdict under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).
3. Whether the trial court properly set aside the jury's comparative-negligence finding and granted a new trial or additur.
4. Whether the trial court properly interpreted the jury's $280,000 damages award as already reflecting the comparative-negligence calculation.
5. Whether admission of excerpts from Blondin's school disciplinary records warranted a new trial.
6. Whether Blondin was entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on his Vermont Public Accommodations Act claim based on the jury instructions and the evidence.
7. Whether punitive damages were available against a municipally funded school district.

Disposition

affirmed