Spaulding v. Shea ( 2024 )

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Case No. 22-CV-04457
65 State Street
Montpelier VT 05602
802-828-2091
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Edward Spaulding et al v. Aron Shea et al
Ruling on the Spauldings’ Motion to Reconsider and to Amend
On February 5, 2024, the Court granted the Sheas’ motion for partial summary
judgment on the Spauldings’ claim of grossly negligent mowing because, in opposition to
the motion, the Spauldings, who had the ultimate burden of proof, failed to come forward
with evidence demonstrating a triable issue that mowing by the Sheas caused the
Spauldings’ water line to break. Everyone agreed that the issue of causation required
expert support, and the Court ruled in detail that the Spaulding expert’s testimony was
impermissibly speculative. The Spauldings then filed a motion to reconsider and to
amend the complaint to recast the claim of gross negligence as one of ordinary
negligence. Their counsel later withdrew, successor counsel eventually appeared, and
the parties completed briefing on the motion in earnest.
“The standard for granting [a motion to reconsider] is strict, and reconsideration
will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or
data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Latouche v. North Country Union
High School Dist., 131 F. Supp. 2d 568, 569 (D. Vt. 2001) (quoting Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “[A] motion to reconsider should not be
granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Id.Order Page 1 of 3
22-CV-04457 Edward Spaulding et al v. Aron Shea et al
While the above precedents inform the Court’s review, as Rule 54(b) provides, the
Court retains extremely broad discretion to reconsider its interlocutory orders. Vt. R.
Civ. P. 54(b) (interlocutory orders “subject to revision at any time” prior to entry of final
judgment); see Drumheller, 185 Vt. at 432. A court should not hesitate to revisit a ruling
that has been issued in error. As Justice Jackson famously noted: “I see no reason why I
should be consciously wrong today because I was unconsciously wrong yesterday.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U.S. 611, 639-40 (1948) (Jackson,
J., dissenting).
In this instance, the Spauldings have not convinced the Court that its prior Order
was erroneous or come forward with any valid basis for reconsideration. They merely
relitigate the issue of causation that was fully briefed by the parties in the course of
summary judgment proceedings. The Court ruled on that matter in detail, concluding
that the Spauldings’ expert’s testimony was too speculative to demonstrate a triable
issue as to causation. The Spauldings disagree with that ruling, but they point out
nothing that the Court overlooked in arriving at that conclusion. Their motion to
reconsider is denied on that ground.
It is unclear, following the appearance of successor counsel, whether the
Spauldings continue to seek to amend the complaint to recast the claim of gross
negligence as one of ordinary negligence. If they do, however, that request also is denied.
If the Spauldings sought to assert such a claim, they should have done so long before
now. More importantly, the fundamental causation defect, as addressed in the summary
judgment decision, would have been no different if the claim had been ordinary rather
than gross negligence. The standard of causation is the same. Under such
Order Page 2 of 3
22-CV-04457 Edward Spaulding et al v. Aron Shea et al
circumstances, the amendment would be denied as futile. See Perkins v. Windsor Hosp.
Corp., 142 Vt. 305, 313 (1982) (amendment may be denied if it (1) would result in undue
delay; (2) is brought in bad faith; (3) would result in unfair prejudice to the opposing
party; or (4) would be futile).
Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Spauldings’ motion for reconsideration and to
amend is denied.
Electronically signed on Wednesday, May 29, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).
_______________________
Timothy B. Tomasi
Superior Court Judge
Order Page 3 of 3
22-CV-04457 Edward Spaulding et al v. Aron Shea et al