to her, but never bit at anyone. The third dog, Harley, was very intelligent and laid back.
¶ 6. In January 2017, Eric Gross and his wife Adrian filed a complaint alleging
negligence against Elizabeth Turner and Antonio Flores.1 Flores, in turn, filed a third-party
1
Plaintiffs state in their brief that they settled with the Pearos for an unspecified amount
prior to filing suit against defendants.
2
complaint against the Pearos seeking indemnification for any judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The
Pearos failed to respond, and default judgment was entered in favor of Flores.
¶ 7. After the parties conducted discovery, each defendant moved for summary
judgment. In December 2017, the court granted summary judgment to defendants in separate
orders. The court determined that plaintiffs had failed to establish that either defendant owed a
duty to plaintiffs to control or restrain the Pearos’ dogs. The court dismissed the third-party
complaint against the Pearos as moot. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which the court
denied in January 2018. This appeal followed.
¶ 8. We review a decision granting summary judgment de novo, using the same standard
as the trial court: summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party shows that the material
facts are not genuinely disputed and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. White
v. Quechee Lakes Landowners’ Ass’n, 170 Vt. 25, 28, 742 A.2d 734, 736 (1999); V.R.C.P. 56(a).
In determining whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, the nonmoving party “is entitled
to the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences.” Carr v. Peerless Ins. Co., 168 Vt. 465, 476,
724 A.2d 454, 461 (1998). Once a claim is challenged by a properly supported motion for