The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Cersosimo supplies wood products. P worked at Cersosimo as a 'manual materials handler.' She lifted lumber repeatedly from a pallet and loaded it on a conveyor belt. P injured her back while lifting, and she alleges that her injuries resulted from the cumulative effect of performing this repetitive, strenuous task. P maintains that her injuries could have been avoided if Cersosimo had simply installed lift tables to facilitate the work. D was Cersosimo's workers' compensation insurance company. One of the major themes of D's advertising campaigns is its expertise in loss prevention. It boasts that it maintains a network of safety consultants and loss prevention representatives (LPRs) who will assist its insureds in creating a safe workplace. P sued D and alleged that d's LPRs inspected Cersosimo's facilities several times in the five years preceding her back injury. D's LPRs concluded that manual materials handling was a major source of injuries. P alleges that D should have recommended to Cersosimo that it install lift tables to assist its manual materials handlers in the strenuous and repetitive lifting their jobs required. If D had done so and had Cersosimo complied with this advice, P maintains that she would not have been injured. Vermont's workers' compensation statute bars P from bringing a tort action against Cersosimo for maintaining an unsafe workplace. The statute does not bar an employee from bringing a tort action against her employer's workers' compensation insurer. P brought an action for negligent inspection against D. The action came to trial in May 1990. D moved for a directed verdict. The motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed. P appealed to this court. While her appeal was pending, the Vermont Supreme Court explicitly adopted section 324A of the Restatement (second) of Torts. We vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for reconsideration. On remand, the court held that P 'did not make out a prima facie case for negligent performance of [an] undertaking under section 324A or otherwise.' The judge reinstated his previous decision. P appealed. P contends that the court erroneously excluded P's advertisements and (2) misconstrued section 324A.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.