High court clears Springfield Moose Lodge of fight liability

The Vermont Supreme Court upheld two lower court rulings Friday stating that the Springfield Moose Lodge was not responsible for the injuries sustained by a Springfield man during a drunken fight there during a New Year’s Eve party.
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20140524/NEWS02/705249942

Published May 24, 2014 in the Rutland Herald High court clears Springfield Moose Lodge of fight liability By SUSAN SMALLHEER Staff Writer The Vermont Supreme Court upheld two lower court rulings Friday stating that the Springfield Moose Lodge was not responsible for the injuries sustained by a Springfield man during a drunken fight there during a New Year’s Eve party. The high court ruled in favor of Springfield Lodge No. 679, and its then-governor, Robert “Bud” Merrill Sr., in a lawsuit brought by Michael R. Buxton of Springfield. Buxton had claimed that Merrill, whose son Robert Merrill Jr., was in part responsible for his injuries, which included a broken ankle. The lodge argued that Merrill Sr., had no responsibilities to protect Buxton as lodge governor because he was a guest himself that night and not on duty as governor. The fight had broken out between Buxton, Merrill Jr., and a third man over a high-stakes arm wrestling contest, which was forbidden by the club. Buxton had sued after the incident. He had failed to convince a Windsor County jury of his claims against the Moose Lodge and its bartenders, and had appealed the verdict and lower-court decisions. The Supreme Court sided with the lower-court judges, Theresa S. DiMauro and Harold E. Eaton Jr., the trial judge in the case, while saying that Eaton should have granted the Moose Lodge summary judgment during the trial. Matthew Anderson, of the Rutland law firm of Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White Ltd., said Friday that he was pleased with the decision. “And the lodge is, too,” he said. “The issue is whether the lodge could be held liable for the actions of Bud Merrill,” he said. He noted that the Supreme Court had ruled the trial judge — Eaton — should have granted the club summary judgment earlier in the case during the trial. “For very good reasons for various clubs, when folks, when they’re drinking, lose any authority on behalf of the lodge. It makes perfectly good sense,” said Anderson, who said added the incident took place about six years ago. He said during the jury trial, the panel had heard evidence that bartenders had been at fault, but had rejected that claim. “The jury found that the bartenders did nothing wrong,” he said. There was no ‘dram shop’ claim in the lawsuit, alleging that the bartenders had over-served people. Anderson said Buxton and his attorney had been seeking damages “in the six figures.” John J. Boylan III, of Boylan Associates P.C. of Springfield, attorney for Buxton, couldn’t be reached for comment Friday. During his arguments before the Vermont Supreme Court last November, Boylan said Merrill Sr. was well aware of the dispute between Buxton and his son and had warned the club’s bartenders about potential problems. As governor of the lodge, “he had a duty to maintain order,” Boylan told the justices.