Court Decision: Davis v. R C & Sons Paving, 2011 ME 88
.jpg)
The Law Court in Davis v. R C & Sons Paving, 2011 ME 88 (August 11, 2011), Gorman, J. issued an opinion affirming summary judgment entered against plaintiff Marilyn Davis who was injured when she fell in her employer's icy parking lot. Ms. Davis's employer, St. Mary's Medical Center, had contracted with the Defendant to plow and sand all parking areas and sidewalks.
The Defendant argued that under Restatement (Second) of Contracts, sec. 302, it did not owe a duty because Ms. Davis was not a "third party beneficiary" or "intended beneficiary" of the snow removal agreement. Ms. Davis countered that she was an intended beneficiary and that the plow company owed her a duty because it negligently created a dangerous condition in the parking area.
The Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, stating there was no evidence that the plow company had negligently created a hazardous condition and that Plaintiff had failed to prove any genuine issue of material fact regarding her third-party beneficiary claim.
In affirming the lower court's decision, the Law Court clarified its decisions in Devine v. Roche Biomedical Labs (Devine II) and Denman v. Peoples Heritage, both involving third-party beneficiary claims. Justice Gorman distinguished between contract claims where there must be a consensual relationship between the parties and tort claims where the issue with whether the defendant is under an obligation to the particular plaintiff.
The Law Court here stated that the Plaintiff could not pursue a contract claim against the Defendant. The Court also found the Defendant, a non-possessor of the land, was not liable for creating a dangerous condition. Here the "precipitating cause" of the hazard was the weather; the plow company did not create the layer of ice beneath the snow.
Davis v. R C & Sons Judgment:
www.mainepersonalinjurylaw.com/uploads/file/Davis v_ R C Paving.pdf
