Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)

Citation: Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)
Parent Document: Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2005-08-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2081593/willard-v-parsons-hill-partnership/ ↗

Full Text

1,065 chars

¶ 45. Our precedents are clear that where the statutory scheme covers the exact situation before the court, it preempts the common law. Swett v. Haig’s, Inc., 164 Vt. 1, 5, 663 A.2d 930, 932 (1995); Winney v. Ransom & Hastings, Inc., 149 Vt. 213, 217-18, 542 A.2d 269, 271-72 (1988); see also Klittner v. Steiner, 158 Vt. 654, 655, 610 A.2d 149, 150 (1992) (mem.) (holding that when a claim falls squarely within the statute’s language, the common-law claim does not survive). The situation here is quite close to Swett, where we followed the plain meaning of the statute to preempt the law with respect to contribution between joint tortfeasors over a dissent that the holding was inconsistent with legislative intent and would gut the statute’s protection. 164 Vt. at 5, 12-13, 663 A.2d at 932, 936-37. In doing so, we noted that the legislative history was “sparse and ambiguous.” Id. at 6, 663 A.2d at 932. The majority opinion pays lip service to our case law on statutory preemption of common-law claims, but does not reconcile its action with that precedent.

Other Sections in This Document (143)

Full Text