(a) When the act or omission of an employee of the State acting within the scope of employment
is believed to have caused damage to property, injury to persons, or death, the exclusive
right of action shall lie against the State of Vermont; and no such action may be
maintained against the employee or the estate of the employee.
(b) This section does not apply to gross negligence or willful misconduct.
(c) As used in this chapter, “employee” means any person defined as a State employee by
3 V.S.A. § 1101. (Added 1961, No. 265, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1961; amended 1989, No. 114, § 2, eff. June 20, 1989.)
Powers v. Off. of Child Support, 795 A.2d 1259 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 4דShe concedes that the individually named defendants were acting within the scope of their employment at all relevant times, but argues that their alleged wrongful actions were grossly negligent and may have been malicious and willful.”
Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 2ד12 V.S.A. § 5602(a); Amy's Enters. v. Sorrell, 174 Vt.”
Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 790 A.2d 408 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 2דPlaintiff moved to amend her complaint after the trial court granted Pallas’s motion for judgment on the pleadings due to the immunity from suit 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a) 5 provides when state employees act within the scope of their employment.”
Huminski v. Lavoie, 787 A.2d 489 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 4דNevertheless, although defendants had never presented immunity defenses on behalf of the individual defendants, the court dismissed the claims against defendants Wright and Lavoie because: (1) under 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a), claims based on an act or omission of a state employee…”
Rochon v. State, 2004 VT 77 (Vt. 2004). · cites it 4דSee 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a)-(b) (exclusive right of action based on conduct of state employees acting within scope of employment is against State, unless claim is that employees acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct).”
Lomberg v. Crowley, 415 A.2d 1324 (Vt. 1980). · cites it 3ד12 V.S.A. § 5602 reserves to the state and its employees a sphere of sovereign immunity which may not be waived by the acquisition of insurance by the state.”
Morway v. Trombly, 789 A.2d 965 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 2ד12 V.S.A. § 5602 (when state employee causes damage or injury while acting within scope of employment, exclusive right of action lies against state), or required municipalities to defend or indemnify municipal employees to the extent required of the state.”
Levinsky v. Diamond, 559 A.2d 1073 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 2ד2d 1324, 1326-27 (1980), defendants, as state employees, were also protected by the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 5602 governing sovereign immunity.”
Cronin v. State, 531 A.2d 929 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 3ד3 Lomberg held that the areas of sovereign immunity preserved by 12 V.S.A. § 5602 were not destroyed by the general waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent of insurance contained in 29 V.”
Libercent v. Aldrich, 539 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 2דChapter 9, is barred by sovereign immunity pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 5602(7). We answer the first of these questions in the affirmative and the second in the negative.”
Curran v. Marcille, 565 A.2d 1362 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 3ד§ 5602, including § 5602(1), which states: The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the state exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be…”
Lomberg v. Crowley, 415 A.2d 1324 (Vt. 1980). “12 V.S.A. § 5602 reserves to the state and its employees a sphere of sovereign immunity which may not be waived by the acquisition of insurance by the state.”
Curran v. Marcille, 565 A.2d 1362 (Vt. 1989). “§ 5602, including § 5602(1), which states: The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the state exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be…”
Cronin v. State, 531 A.2d 929 (Vt. 1987). “3 Lomberg held that the areas of sovereign immunity preserved by 12 V.S.A. § 5602 were not destroyed by the general waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent of insurance contained in 29 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(7) — 1 case
Libercent v. Aldrich, 539 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1987). “Chapter 9, is barred by sovereign immunity pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 5602(7). We answer the first of these questions in the affirmative and the second in the negative.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(a) — 25 cases
Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20 (Vt. 2008). “12 V.S.A. § 5602(a); Amy's Enters. v. Sorrell, 174 Vt.”
Powers v. Off. of Child Support, 795 A.2d 1259 (Vt. 2002). “She concedes that the individually named defendants were acting within the scope of their employment at all relevant times, but argues that their alleged wrongful actions were grossly negligent and may have been malicious and willful.”
Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 790 A.2d 408 (Vt. 2001). “Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint after the trial court granted Pallas’s motion for judgment on the pleadings due to the immunity from suit 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a) 5 provides when state employees act within the scope of their employment.”
Rochon v. State, 2004 VT 77 (Vt. 2004). “See 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a)-(b) (exclusive right of action based on conduct of state employees acting within scope of employment is against State, unless claim is that employees acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct).”
Huminski v. Lavoie, 787 A.2d 489 (Vt. 2001). “Nevertheless, although defendants had never presented immunity defenses on behalf of the individual defendants, the court dismissed the claims against defendants Wright and Lavoie because: (1) under 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a), claims based on an act or omission of a state employee…”
Powers v. Off. of Child Support, 795 A.2d 1259 (Vt. 2002). “She concedes that the individually named defendants were acting within the scope of their employment at all relevant times, but argues that their alleged wrongful actions were grossly negligent and may have been malicious and willful.”
Huminski v. Lavoie, 787 A.2d 489 (Vt. 2001). “Nevertheless, although defendants had never presented immunity defenses on behalf of the individual defendants, the court dismissed the claims against defendants Wright and Lavoie because: (1) under 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a), claims based on an act or omission of a state employee…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.