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

1,575 chars

[3] The dissent accuses the majority of reaching the decision in this case based on obvious sympathy for the plaintiffs, see post, ¶ 43, implying that it is sympathy rather than an appropriate statutory interpretation that compels the decision. It then speculates that plaintiffs could receive a double recovery because, as a result of a settlement, plaintiffs omitted all negligence and consumer fraud claims against defendants, including failure to warn, from their last amended complaint. To be clear, these claims were dropped as part of a multi-party settlement between plaintiffs and a variety of defendants who are no longer part of this case; the Rooneys and the partnership were not parties to that settlement. Thus, as the dissent acknowledges, plaintiffs' claims against the Rooneys and the partnership were not themselves settled. Without the benefit of argument from defendants on this topic, who did not raise any issue of double recovery, the dissent surmises that plaintiffs settled these claims for value. It admits that there is no record evidence on this point because plaintiffs' settlement with the non-Rooney defendants is not disclosed, but it uses this argument to buttress its opinion that the plaintiffs are not worthy of the majority's alleged sympathies. This argument is irrelevant in this case. The majority opinion either stands or falls on its interpretation of the cause of action before this Court, and not on whether there were other causes of action that plaintiffs filed, but ultimately gave up as part of a settlement with other parties.

Other Sections in This Document (143)

Full Text