Peck v. Counseling Service Of Addison County, Inc.

499 A.2d 422 (1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

John, age twenty-nine and son of Ps, set fire to Ps' barn and burned it to the ground. John Peck was an outpatient of D, under the treatment of one of D's counselor-psychotherapists. On June 20, 1979, John, who was living at home with Ps, had had an argument with his father. His father called him 'sick and mentally ill' and told him he should be hospitalized. John packed his suitcase and left home. He arrived at D and told his therapist that he had had a fight with his father, that he was upset with his father, and that 'he didn't think his father cared about him or respected him.' The therapist arranged for John to stay at the home of John's grandparents and scheduled a counseling session for the next day, June 21. At the June 21st session, John was still angry with his father. At the start of the next counseling session on June 26, John told his therapist that he 'wanted to get back at his father.' In response to a question by the therapist about how he would get back at his father, John stated, 'I don't know, I could burn down his barn.' The therapist and John discussed the possible consequences of such an act. John, at the request of the therapist, made a verbal promise not to burn down his father's barn. Believing that John would keep his promise, the therapist did not disclose John's threats to any other staff member of D or to Ps. Ps sued D for negligence in not warning Ps of the danger. D moved to dismiss Ps' complaint. The trial court denied D's motion by concluding that there was a genuine issue as to material facts which required resolution before a determination could be made on whether a duty was owed by D to Ps. Following a trial, the court dismissed the case with prejudice because it determined that under current Vermont law there was no basis to find that D owed a duty to take action to protect Ps. Ps appealed. Ps contend that by D's failure 'to take steps that were reasonably necessary to protect' Ps, D breached a duty of care owed to them.