undertaking to render services to another is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to the
intended recipient of the services or a foreseeable third person. See Restatement (Second) of Torts
§§ 323, 324A; Langlois v. Town of Proctor, 2014 VT 130, ¶ 10, 198 Vt. 137, 113 A.3d 44 (noting
that Vermont has recognized and chosen to follow §§ 323 and 324A).
¶ 28. Plaintiffs’ claim is based on Eric Gross’s testimony that he heard an unidentified
person say “come, get back, get them in the backyard,” and waited with his dog until the Pearos’
dogs were out of view. He waited for about twenty or thirty seconds, and “[e]ventually the dogs
were gone. I thought they had a fence. So we continued walking.” The Pearos’ dogs then ran
over and attacked his dog. From this testimony, plaintiffs infer that after letting the dogs out of
the house, Flores “corralled” the dogs in the Pearos’ backyard, but then negligently let them escape
his control.
¶ 29. This is not a reasonable inference to draw from the record. See Carr, 168 Vt. at
476, 724 A.2d at 461 (explaining nonmoving party entitled to benefit of reasonable doubts and
inferences). There is no evidence of what happened during the twenty or thirty seconds when the
dogs were out of plaintiff’s view, and there is no evidence that Flores had the dogs under effective
control at any point between when they exited the house and attacked plaintiffs’ dog or that he
behaved negligently in any way. The record is simply insufficient for a jury to find that Flores
undertook to control the dogs after they exited the house. See Rubin v. Town of Poultney, 168 Vt.
624, 626, 721 A.2d 504, 506 (1998) (mem.) (holding town officers’ warnings to dog owners to