I'm just a non-lawyer law geek (and former law student), but my understanding is: precedent does matter in small claims court to the same extent as in regular court, but rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed, the ability to appeal the judgment can be limited (not always zero), and the judges sometimes have less training than in regular courts. A lot of these specifics are determined by laws which vary by state, but I don't think any states formally take a different approach to precedent in small claims specifically.

As for California vs Vermont, those are in different states and under the jurisdiction of different federal courts of appeals. Therefore the only directly binding judicial precedents shared between them would be from the US Supreme Court (and some from England at the time of US independence).

However, if there's no controlling binding precedent, most courts would be willing to consider other states' sufficiently relevant judgments at a persuasive but non-binding level.