cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)

Citation: cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Parent Document: cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2025-10-03
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19496 ↗

Full Text

942 chars

Alliance contends that any issues with the window screen did not render the apartment
uninhabitable. As an initial matter, it is not clear that Plaintiffs’ warranty claim is based solely
on the allegedly insecure window screen. Plaintiffs mention the screen in paragraph 8 of their
Amended Complaint in describing Aria’s fall, but in paragraph 7 they assert that there were no
“fall protection measures” installed in the window, including “any mechanism that would
prevent the operable portion . . . from opening greater than four (4) inches.” Am. Compl. ¶ 7.
However, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have waived this argument by failing to oppose the
summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Myer, 2010 VT 10, ¶ 18, 187
Vt. 323 (holding that party’s “failure to oppose [dispositive] motion effectively waived the
claims” of error (citing Progressive Ins. Co. v. Brown ex rel. Brown, 2008 VT 103, ¶¶ 8-9, 184
Vt. 388)).

Other Sections in This Document (29)

Full Text