Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dubaniewicz v. Houman

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided September 15, 2006No. 04-306Published

1Dissent

Burgess, D.J.,

¶ 23. Specially Assigned, dissenting in part. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s extension of the wrongful death act to recovery for sibling loss of companionship. While the homicide at the core of this case was horrific, the trial court was nevertheless correct in holding that Vermont’s wrongful death act creates no cause of action for grief, anguish and loss of companionship resulting from the wrongful killing of a brother or sister. The right to recover any damages for wrongful death is purely statutory. No such claim exists in common law. See, e.g., Lazelle v. Town…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Needham v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1865
  3. Clymer v. WebsterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991
  4. State v. JacobsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1984
  5. Lazelle v. Town of NewfaneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1898

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API