Published July 7, 2007

BURLINGTON — Charles Meyer was only 14 years old in August 2004 when he drove his fast car into the ledges of Willoughby Lake, killing the two local teenagers who were his passengers.

But he may be an adult before he sees the final bill for his childish mistake.

There has been another odd twist in the lawsuit in which the families of the two dead youths, Philip Leno and Norman Woolard, seek to collect millions of dollars in damages from Mr. Meyer and his mother, Julie Jensen.  The federal judge in the case, William Sessions III, has asked the Vermont Supreme Court to settle what, in practical terms, may be the central issue in the case:

Can the families seek punitive damages that might go far beyond any compensatory damages a jury might award them?

Lawyers for Mr. Meyer say there is no provision in Vermont statutes for extra, punitive damages, and they should be ruled out long before the case goes to a jury.

Lawyers for the families have said from the beginning that Mr. Meyer and his mother behaved so outrageously that the case cries out for damages that not only compensate the survivors of the tragedy, but also punish those responsible.

The resolution of the argument, Judge Sessions wrote, “depends entirely on this question of Vermont law, on which there are no clear controlling precedents in the decisions of the Vermont Court.”

The Supreme Court could decline to answer the judge’s question.  But if it accepts Judge Sessions’ invitation, it would delay the underlying lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Burlington for at least six months.

Technically, there are two questions:  do Vermont’s Wrongful Death Act, or its Survival Statute, allow the award of punitive damages?

The question is particularly important in this case because Mr. Meyer’s family is clearly in a position to pay substantial damages.  His mother, the daughter of a wealthy Texas businessmen, is a philanthropist who has quietly made small grants to many Northeast Kingdom organizations over the years.  Most of them, ironically, were aimed at helping young people, and at least one supported a safe driving program.

After a hearing in December 2006, Judge Sessions ruled out punitive damages against Ms. Jensen.  Even if they are possible under state law, even if she bears some liability for the tragedy, even if all the claims of the families’ outraged attorneys prove to be true, the judge ruled, Ms. Jensen did nothing that could justify the imposition of punitive damages.

But, noting an allegation that her son drove the car 100 miles an hour in a 35 zone, the judge declined to rule out punitive damages against Charles Meyer.

If the state Supreme Court does so, there’s a possibility that the case could be settled out of court, without the need for a long and painful trial.

That, at least, was the opinion of a mediator who met with both sides in November 2006.  Attorney James Spink, the mediator, wrote that “it would materially advance the prospect of settlement to have a resolution of the pending motion concerning the issue of punitive damages, in my view.”  Once that question is resolved, he added, another attempt at mediation might yield a settlement.

The question Judge Sessions has raised has important implications outside the Meyer case.

If the judge were to make his best guess on the issue, either side could appeal.  And that appeal would go to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal court in New York State.  Those judges, like Judge Sessions, would be in the uncomfortable position of figuring out how the Vermont Supreme Court would have ruled on the issue, if it had had the chance.

In an effort to preempt a state lawsuit, Ms. Jensen brought the case in federal court.  She had a right to do so because she and her son live out of state.  But the case still hinges on Vermont law and legal precedent.

That, says Vince Illuzzi of Derby, the attorney for the family of Norman Woolard, is why the Vermont Supreme Court will decide to take up the question.  “Otherwise they would be giving up the ability to decide on case law in Vermont,” he said Tuesday.  “Why leave it up to the federal courts on such an important issue?”

It is important, he added, to Vermont trial lawyers and their clients.  To people responsible for such tragedies, he said, the possibility of punitive damages “can be troublesome, if they have the assets to back up the judgment.”

On the other side, Marc Heath of Burlington, an attorney for Mr. Meyer, agreed.  “Yes, it is an important question,” he said, “and it would be helpful to get it resolved.

“It kind of makes more sense to have the Vermont Supreme Court rule on it, rather than the Second Circuit,” Mr. Heath added.