Rivers v. State (1974)

Rivers v. State of Vermont, 133 Vt. 11 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974).

"The law of proximate cause calls for a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences." Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974).

A>The law of proximate cause calls for a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences.=@ State v. Roberts, 147 Vt. 160, 163 (1986), quoting Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 (1974).

This court accordingly held that "[g]iven this special relationship, it is not unreasonable to impose a duty of care on the state to protect the victims of parolees." Id. at 1126-27 . [12] Sorge v. State, 171 Vt. 171 , 762 A.2d 816, 823 (2000). [13] Id. at 817-18, 820-23. [14] Id. at 820-23. [15] Id. at 820 (citing Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974) (refusing to impose liability on state "where there is release on probation or parole, or even for early re…

See Hobart v. P. J.’s Auto Village, Inc., 136 Vt. 287, 289 , 388 A.2d 419, 420 (1978) (“It is also the well established law that negligence to be actionable must be the proximate cause of the injury for which compensation is sought.”) (citing Cameron v. Bissonette, 103 Vt. 93, 95 , 152 A. 87, 88 (1930)); Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974); Restatement § 552B(1) (permitting recovery only of pecuniary losses for which the misrepresentation is the legal …

Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974).

“The law of proximate cause calls for a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible . . . and the resulting flow of injurious consequences.” Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 (1974).

See Gallipo, 2005 VT 83, at ¶ 15 (causation is a necessary element in civil rights claim); Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 (1974) (“The law of proximate cause calls for a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences.”).

“The law of proximate cause ‘calls for a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences.’ ” Lussier v. Bessette, 189 Vt. 95 , 16 A.3d 580, 585 (2010)(quoting Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974)).

This prong is often referred to as “proximate cause” and requires “a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences.” Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 (1974).

Proximate cause requires “a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences.” Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 (1974).

Proximate cause requires “a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences.” Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 (1974).

The law of *103 proximate cause “calls for a causal connection between the act for which the defendant is claimed to be responsible and which is alleged to be negligent and the resulting flow of injurious consequences.” Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974).

Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 (1974).

See Langle v. Kurkul, 510 A.2d at 1305 ; Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974); see also Restatement (Second) Torts, § 317(b)(ii) (A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his servant if he “knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.”) The fact that the Diocese may control some activities of its priests does not, of itself, impose a legal duty to protect the plaintiff absent some sort of n…

See Finnegan v. State, 138 Vt. 603, 606 , 420 A.2d 104, 105 (1980) (even if State’s negligence allowed inmate to escape, State not liable for damages caused by escapee’s independent act of driving his vehicle into another car); Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974) (as a matter of law, release of inmate through furlough program not proximate cause of deaths from automobile accident negligently caused by inmate); cf. Haselhorst v. State, 485 N.W.2d 180, 1…

Rivers v. State, 133 Vt.11, 14, 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974).

Finnegan v. State, 138 Vt. 603, 606 , 420 A.2d 104, 105 (1980); Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974).

Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 13 , 328 A.2d 398, 399 (1974).

As Mr. Chief Justice Barney stated in Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 13 , 328 A.2d 398, 399 (1974): There are two interrelated legal concerns involved here.

Id. at 177-78 , 762 A.2d at 820-21 ; see also Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974) (emphasizing rehabilitative goals of release of inmates on probation or parole, and stating that liability premised on duty of State to third parties harmed during inmate’s release on weekend pass “runs dangerously parallel to the arguments for preventative detention that represent an overriding of constitutional limitations”); Finnegan v. State, 138 Vt. 603, 606 , 420 A.…

See Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974) (rejecting argument for transferable liability to State “where there is release on probation or parole, or even for early release based on good time.

See Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974).

Id. at 177-78 , 762 A.2d at 820-21 ; see also Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974) (emphasizing rehabilitative goals of release of inmates on probation or parole, and stating that liability premised on duty of State to third parties harmed during inmate’s release on weekend pass “runs dangerously parallel to the arguments for preventative detention that represent an overriding of constitutional limitations”); Finnegan v. State, 138 Vt. 603, 606 , 420 A.…

See, e.g., Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 13 , 328 A.2d 398, 399 (1974).

See, e.g., Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 13 , 328 A.2d 398, 399 (1974).

Powers v. Hayes, 172 Vt. 535, 536, 776 A.2d 374, 375 (2001); see Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974).

“Proximate cause is ordinarily an issue to be resolved by the jury ‘unless the proof is so clear that reasonable minds cannot draw different conclusions or where all reasonable minds would construe the facts and circumstances one way.’” Roberts v. State, 147 Vt. 160, 163 , 514 A.2d 694, 696 (1986) (quoting Schaefer v. Elswood Trailer Sales, 516 P.2d 1168, 1170 (Idaho 1973)); see also Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 14 , 328 A.2d 398, 400 (1974) (affirming trial court’s directed…

See Rivers v. State of Vermont, 133 Vt. 11 , 328 A.2d 398 (1974).