Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sarah Graham filed a complaint against Shyam Brown, alleging physical, emotional, and mental abuse, and seeking damages. Brown did not file an answer, and the district court entered a default against him. After a hearing on damages, the court awarded Graham compensatory damages of $50,000 and punitive damages of $5,000. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to set aside the entry of default; (2) the district court did not err by holding that Brown was liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and entering a default judgment accordingly; and (3) the district court did not err in its determination of compensatory damages, and the punitive damages award was not excessive. View "Graham v. Brown" on Justia Law

Paul Davis was struck and seriously injured by a truck driven by Edwin Rodriguez. Rodriguez was driving while intoxicated soon after he and Davis exited a chartered bus at the conclusion of a business promotion trip. Rodriguez later pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and DUI. Davis filed claims against the business that organized the trip, its employee, the chartered bus company, and its employee (Defendants) for common law negligence. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. At issue on appeal was whether Defendants owed Davis a common law duty of care. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) the chartered bus company and the employee who drove the bus did not owe Davis a duty to ensure his safety by preventing Rodriguez from driving his truck after the bus trip ended, and (2) the business that organized the trip and its employee did not have a fiduciary duty to Davis because the employee organized and led the excursion. View "Davis v. Dionne" on Justia Law

After being diagnosed with prostate cancer, Philip Baker filed a notice of claim in accordance with the Health Security Act, alleging that his primary care physician violated the applicable standard of care by failing to refer him to a urologist earlier, thus delaying his diagnosis. The superior court granted partial summary judgment to the doctor, finding that the three-year statute of limitations barred Baker's claims for negligent acts or omissions occurring more than three years before he filed his notice. In so ruling, the court declined to recognize the continuing negligent treatment doctrine, which allows a patient to assert a cause of action for professional negligence based upon two or more related negligent acts or omissions by a health care provider or practitioner if some, but not all, of the acts or omissions occurred outside of the statute of limitations period. The Supreme Court vacated the partial summary judgment, holding that the language of the Health Security Act authorizes claims of continuing negligent treatment. Remanded. View "Baker v. Farrand" on Justia Law

Appellants Samantha Young and Rebekah Alley were injured while riding in a vehicle driven by Joshua Weeks. Appellants appealed from a judgment entered in the superior court in which the court held Weeks liable but permitted North East Insurance Company to rescind its automobile insurance policy on the vehicle Weeks was driving. Specifically, Young and Alley challenged the court's entry of summary judgment in favor of North East on its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the driver because Weeks' mother had made material, fraudulent misrepresentations in applying for the automobile insurance. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Weeks' mother made a material, fraudulent misrepresentation to North East in obtaining the insurance policy. Remanded. View "North East Ins. Co. v. Young" on Justia Law

Marilyn Davis, a hospital employee, was injured when she slipped and fell in the hospital parking lot. The hospital had contracted with Defendants R C & Sons to plow and sand all of its parking areas. At the time Davis was injured, Defendants had not sanded the parking lot. Davis brought suit against Defendants, alleging negligence. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it did not owe Davis a duty of care because Davis was not a third party beneficiary or intended beneficiary of the snow removal agreement. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed but on other grounds, holding (1) because Davis was not seeking to enforce the snow removal agreement between the hospital and Defendants, Davis's status as a third-party beneficiary of the agreement was immaterial; and (2) because Davis failed to generate a genuine issue of fact demonstrating the Defendants negligently created a dangerous condition, and because Davis alleged no other grounds to support the imposition of a duty of care, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Defendants. View "Marilyn R. Davis v. R C & Sons Paving, Inc." on Justia Law

Peter Miller injured his lower back in 1992, 1995, and 1996 while working for S.D. Warren and in 1999 while working for Spinnaker Coating. A Workers' Compensation Board hearing officer awarded Miller sixty-five percent partial incapacity benefits apportioned equally among the four dates of injury. Later, the hearing officer (1) granted S.D. Warren's petition for review requesting permission to cease payment for the 1992 injury because it had made all payments to which Miller was entitled for that injury; (2) granted Spinnaker's petition to reduce its benefit payment accordingly; and (3) denied Miller's petition for review seeking an increase to total incapacity benefits, determining that Miller had not demonstrated a change in medical or economic circumstances. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing officer did not improperly expand the Court's holding in Cust v. University of Maine to allow for a reduction in benefits when the durational limit has expired on the first of multiple injuries. View " Miller v. Spinnaker Coating" on Justia Law

Eryn Steele was married to Chris Steele when Ryan Botticello allegedly assaulted Chris. Chris sued Ryan and his father for damages related to his injuries and later settled and released his claim against the Botticellos. Later, Eryn sued the Botticellos for damages related to her loss of consortium. The Botticellos asserted the affirmative defense of release in their amended answer and moved for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Botticellos, concluding that, under Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp., Chris's release barred Eryn's consortium claim because it was derivative of Chris's underlying tort claim. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of summary judgment, holding that an injured person's settlement and release of a claim for personal injuries does not preclude that person's spouse from recovering for loss of consortium when the spouse was not a party to the settlement and release. Remanded. View "Steele v. Botticello" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Scott Hackett aggravated a pre-existing low back injury while working as a long distance truck driver for Western Express. After Hackett was terminated for reasons unconnected to his injury, Hackett filed a petition for award to the Workers' Compensation Board and was awarded ongoing partial incapacity benefits for a gradual injury to his lower back. When calculating Hackett's weekly wage, the hearing officer (1) excluded the nine cents per mile Hackett received as per diem pay, concluding that it was paid to cover special expenses, and (2) concluded that the per diem payments were not a fringe benefit that could be included to a limited extent in average weekly wage. Hackett appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the hearing officer's decision but remanded for a recalculation of Hackett's fringe benefits pursuant to Me. W.C.B. R. ch. 1, 5(1). View "Hackett v. Western Express, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2004, Matthew Doucette injured his back while working for Sysco. Doucette did not lose any earnings as a result of his injury and had no further problems with his back until 2008 when he reinjured it while working for a different employer. In 2009, Doucette filed a petition for award against Sysco for the 2004 injury, alleging entitlement to compensation from 2004 to the present. Doucette also asserted a fourteen-day rule violation against Sysco for failing to file a notice of controversy (NOC) within fourteen days of receiving the petition. Although there was some disagreement over the date of the filing, the Workers' Compensation Board hearing officer found the NOC was filed on the fifteenth day and determined Sysco was in violation of the fourteen-day rule. Sysco appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing officer did not err in determining a fourteen-day rule violation occurred, (2) the hearing officer did not err in awarding total benefits from the date of the injury when the employee suffered no loss of earnings as a result of the injury, and (3) the award was not excessive and unfair. View " Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Services, et al." on Justia Law

sPlaintiff Craig Burns was injured when an overhead garage door struck him on the head when he was at work. Plaintiff sued the installer of the door, Defendant Architectural Doors and Windows (ADW), on a products liability theory only to discover that ADW did not manufacture or supply the alleged defective door. The trial court granted ADWâs motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not allowing him to present evidence for alternate theories under which he could hold ADW accountable. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial courtâs actions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial courtâs judgment in favor of ADW.