March, 2008

Landmark Ruling in Tent-Collapse Case Leads to Sizable Settlement

In March, Gravel and Shea attorneys Robert Hemley, Norman Williams, and Heather Hammond obtained a seven-figure settlement on behalf of nine wedding guests killed or badly injured when a tent collapsed on Isle La Motte on June 26, 2004. Due to an inadequate number of stakes, the large party tent was unable to withstand winds from a summer thunderstorm. The aluminum center poles struck several guests as they came crashing down, killing one.

Gravel and Shea represented the estate of a woman who was killed by the falling pole, as well as other guests who survived but suffered serious head injuries or emotional trauma. Two guests struck in the head suffered significant losses in cognitive abilities and will endure repeated, debilitating headaches for the rest of their lives. Others suffered major emotional trauma from witnessing the injuries of their loved ones. Family members watched in horror while trying to care for their mother and grandmother, whose skull was partially crushed and who bled profusely before she died. Another guest saw her husband collapse after being struck on the head by a falling pole.

Gravel and Shea brought suit against both the tent's manufacturer and the local tent rental company. The firm located an engineer and expert in tent design who testified that the party tent did not have adequate staking to meet code or withstand the kind of wind speeds which are customary on Isle La Motte every summer. The firm also succeeded in obtaining a precedent-setting court ruling, which allowed victims to pursue their claims for emotional harm. (See Court's Entry Denying Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment)

Before this case, Vermont did not allow "bystanders" to recover for the emotional distress caused by watching a loved one suffer serious injuries or death, unless the bystander also feared for his or her own safety. For instance, in a case in which a mother watched from a roadside as a negligent driver ran over her daughter as she got off the school bus, the mother was barred from recovering for emotional distress because she herself was not in danger. Gravel and Shea successfully persuaded the trial court to abandon this "zone of danger" requirement. The court held that a person who witnesses the serious injury or death of a loved one may seek compensation for emotional harm. In the wake of this landmark ruling, Gravel and Shea negotiated a sizable settlement for its clients.