It appears that the legislature amended 14 V.S.A. § 1492(a) after the Leo-Coneys case, Leo v. Hillman 164 Vt. 94 (1995), to allow the estate to benefit from the State's development of a case against the alleged killer. Since "probable cause" approximates the preponderance of the evidence standard, the legislature may have assumed that if the State can ultimately make that showing, the estate can too and should be given the benefit of more time to do so (the State has no statute of limitations). Evidence about the killing may not be sufficient 2 years after the death to warrant a wrongful death action. Rather than requiring estates to file timely but possibly meritless wrongful death suits, the estate is allowed to piggyback the State's efforts, whether or not the State obtains a conviction (if probable cause is found, the amended Wrongful Death 2-year period runs from when the criminal judgment becomes final, regardless of the result).
SCOVT affirms summary judgment dismissing premises liability claim brought
on behalf of trespassing child, declining to adopt attractive nuisance
doctrine recognized in the Restatement, holding protection of children was
not “plain justification “ for overruling longstanding
no-duty-to-trespasser precedent that has fostered certainty, stability, and
predictability in Vermont’s landowner liability law.
-
* Premises Liability. Attractive Nuisance. Stare Decisi*s
Treadway v. Green Mountain Power Corporation, 2026 VT 20 [6/5/2026]
EATON, J. Plaintiff Ia...
4 months ago