Premise Liability

April 26, 2017

Maine Supreme Judicial Court Rules on Campus Injury Lawsuit

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a university and against a student who suffered an injury in a slip-and-fall accident on campus.

According to court records, the issue in this case was not the merits of the plaintiff’s case but instead whether she filed within the statutory 180-day filing period according to 14 M.R.S. § 8107, which details the notice that is required when a plaintiff plans to file a lawsuit against a governmental entity. Many colleges are considered governmental entities, and therefore, plaintiffs making injury claims against them must follow such provisions.

Per the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (as the one against whom the summary judgment was entered), the plaintiff suffered an injury when she slipped and fell on a patch of ice outside her dorm on the Gorham campus of the University of Southern Maine. This injury occurred in mid-January 2014. As a result of that fall, the plaintiff suffered a broken leg and torn ligaments and had to undergo surgery.

February 2, 2017

Maine Premises Liability Verdict Affirmed

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Most businesses carry general liability insurance, particularly if they invite customers on site to do business. That’s because under Maine statutes, a person who is invited onto the property for the financial benefit of the property owner is owed the highest duty of care and has the right to expect they will be reasonably safe. General liability insurance typically covers businesses from liability lawsuits stemming from claims like slip-and-fall injuries, falling merchandise, or some other dangerous condition.

However, those establishments that sell alcohol and invite patrons to drink on site should consider additional coverage because there are claims unique to these entities. For example, some bars and restaurants face the possibility of dram shop liability, in which those injured by a drunk driver can sue the bar where workers served that driver alcohol. Another possibility is that of third-party liability for criminal assault. Of course, there is a potential for this kind of action in many different business settings, but especially so at a bar where patrons’ inhibitions may be lowered, making some more aggressive and others more vulnerable.

In a recent Maine Supreme Judicial Court case, the question is whether an insurance company should have to indemnify the business for injuries sustained by a man who was beaten by a fellow patron at the bar. The claim by the bar against the insurer doesn’t have a direct bearing on the injury lawsuit filed by the patron, except that by making the bar directly liable rather than the insurer, there is a risk the bar won’t be able to pay out the full damages, depending on how much those damages are and the health of the business.

January 2, 2017

Homeowner Sued for Maine Woman’s Death in Fatal Fall

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Usually, when we think of property owner liability, we’re thinking of a business that is responsible after a customer slips and falls or is attacked in a parking lot. But premises liability can extend to private homeowners too. It does depend on the situation, and private homeowners usually don’t owe the same high level of care to their guests that businesses do when they welcome members of the public. Nonetheless, a failure to use reasonable care can result in liability. Claims are typically paid by one’s homeowners’ insurance.

Recently, the father of a single mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a private homeowner responsible for a house in Waterville where his daughter suffered a fatal fall from the second story.

According to The Portland Press Herald, the 33-year-old woman, from Clinton, was killed a year ago after she fell after stepping out a set of sliding glass doors on the second floor. The problem was that while the doors were supposed to open up to a balcony, that feature hadn’t yet been built. Nonetheless, the homeowner, who was hosting a holiday party, failed to block off those doors or take measures to stop people from opening the door or from walking outside.

December 10, 2015

Angelo v. Campus Crest at Orono LLC – Police Officer Sues for Dangerous Condition on Property

by Peter Thompson & Associates

A police officer wading into a rowdy college crowd in Orono to arrest unruly guests fell and broke his ankle. As this incident occurred while he was working, he’s almost certainly entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. However, that only covers part of his expenses, and he has since filed a premises liability lawsuit against the apartment complex where he fell.

In Angelo v. Campus Crest at Orono LLC, the Old Town police officer alleges the management company that operates The Grove apartment complex – the largest off campus living quarters near The University of Maine – was negligent in failing to maintain the property in safe condition. The party to which he responded from outside his jurisdiction was huge, with an estimated 400 people – mostly students – in attendance. Many were drinking alcohol, despite being underage.

Apartment complex managers may not be responsible for every gathering at their location, but the issue here was the fact this was a regular occurrence on this site. The complex opened in 2012, and there was a similar large party that took place there at that time. There was another large party there the following year, just after school started. In this instance, students again amassed on the site the first weekend after classes started. Continue reading

November 26, 2015

Estate of Gagnon v. Anthony – Comparative Fault in Maine Personal Injury Lawsuit

by Peter Thompson & Associates

The issue of comparative fault in Maine personal injury lawsuits is a significant one because, depending on the degree of it, an injured person’s right to collect damages may be significantly reduced or eliminated entirely.

Maine Revised Statute Titel 14 Part 1 Chapter 7 Section 156 covers “comparative negligence.” The law states that when a person suffers death or damages that are party the result of that person’s own fault, the claim isn’t barred entirely, but the amount of damages recoverable are to be reduced to such an extent the jury believes equitable, accounting for claimant’s share of responsibility. So if a plaintiff wins $100,000 in damages but is deemed to be 25 percent comparatively negligent, he or she will only collect $75,000 from defendant.

If a plaintiff is determined to be equally or more at-fault for his or her injuries, plaintiff cannot recovery any damages. Continue reading

April 15, 2015

Sayed v. Wal-Mart: Man Sues Store After Being Hit With Cart

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Anytime a patron of a store lawfully enters that commercial property, he or she has a right to expect the business – and its agents – will act with reasonable care to ensure the site will be kept in reasonably safe condition. That includes making sure shelves are safely stacked, aisles are clear of debris and substances, lighting is adequate, and entrances stairways, walkways and parking lots are in good condition.

It also means employees must act with reasonable care when carrying out their jobs.

When this does not happen, it’s a form of premises liability. That’s what is alleged in the recent Portland case of Sayed v. Wal-Mart, in which a man says he was strapping his infant son into the front of a shopping cart when an employee of the store negligently rammed a line of shopping carts into his back.

March 20, 2015

Bangor Health Safety Officials Say 6,000 Apartments Need Routine Inspection

by Peter Thompson & Associates

City health and safety regulators in Bangor are only authorized to initiate an inspection of private property when there is a complaint from either residents or landlords.

That could soon change, as a proposal before city council would launch a new program providing for routine inspections of some 6,000 local apartment units. Officials would be scanning the property for dangerous conditions amounting to health and safety code violations.

The goal, according to Bangor’s community and economic development director, would be the assurance that renters are granted the healthy, safe living quarters to which they are entitled.

February 4, 2015

Maine Ice and Snow Slip-and-Fall Injuries Common

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Extreme winter weather conditions are a part of life in Portland and throughout Maine, making virtually every mode of transportation potentially perilous. This was part of the reason the state issued a travel ban during the most recent blizzard.

Given the frequency of such storms, property owners must be vigilant about ensuring the premises is reasonably free from slippery conditions for employees, customers and other guests.

Legislators in Maine have wrestled with just how much responsibility business owners should have to safeguard their site against such hazards.

October 10, 2014

Dangerous Property Poses Hazards for Maine Tenants

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Tenants in a downtown apartment complex in Brunswick were evacuated from their homes recently when fire department officials deemed the rampant code violations a threat to their safety. According to the Bangor Daily News report, those conditions included:

Blocked emergency exits;
Non-functioning smoke-detectors;

May 15, 2012

Utility Negligence in Bangor Car Accidents

by Peter Thompson & Associates

If you have been in a car accident with a stable object, you may think you cannot recover damages from any other party. But that is not an accurate assessment in allscases.If you have been injured because of a Bangor car accident which was caused by the negligent maintenance of property, you may feel overwhelmed with the thought of how you will collect damages. Having an experienced Bangor injury attorney can give you the peace of mind you need in your case.

Seals v. Morris County is a case arising from a car accident. Seals (plaintiff) was driving his pickup truck on a road in Morris County New Jersey early in the morning. There was snow on the ground, and when the plaintiff tried to step on his brakes, the car continued downhill. The car hit an electric utility pole that was placed several feet from the side of the road. Plaintiff sustained injuries for which he sought damages.

Plaintiff sued Morris County for negligent maintenance of the road he was traveling on, and Jersey Central Power and Light (Electric Co.) for its alleged negligent placement of the electric pole.

The main issues in this case were two-fold. First, the court analyzed whether an electric company could be held liable for negligently placing an electric pole along a public highway. Secondly, whether a county is entitled to claim sovereign immunity where the county was negligent.

This electric pole was placed on county property. The Electric Co. had placed the pole there and had not received any objection to the pole’s placement from the county. There had been previous car accidents that occurred involving the pole which the Electric Co. was made aware of. However, it was company policy at the Electric Co. that the only time it moved electric poles was at the request of the county where the pole is located.

Although the pole was located on county property, the county argued that because there was no Morris County police, the county had no notice that these accidents were occurring there because the municipal police did not notify them. The county further argued that it had not given consent to have that pole placed there, although it had been there for over thirty years.

The Electric Co. argued that although the county had been silent as to the placement of the pole, this silence should be considered assent; thus rendering the Electric Co. immune from the imposition of liability. This argument hinged on state statute that indicates that where a utility company has maintained a utility pole in the same location for ten years, the owner of the land where the pole is placed is presumed to have consented to this placement.

With both the Electric Co. and the county arguing that the other should be held liable under negligence, the court was set decide the matter. Through application of state statute and New Jersey case law, this court held that where a government entity directs a utility company to where utility poles should be placed the utility company is immune from liability. However, the facts of this case indicate that the County had been silent as to the placement of this offending pole thus, conferring ordinary negligence to both the county and the Electric Co.

Thus the rule established in this case is that where a utility company negligently places or maintains an electric pole causing an unreasonable and unnecessary danger to drivers traveling on that road, the utility company can be held liable.

Through this court decision it is seen that the only way a utility company can be immune from liability is where it negligent acts were a result of a direction from a governmental entity.

The issue of whether the county is immune from liability was left to the lower court to determine on remand.