Maine Injury & Accident Lawyer & Attorney : Joe Bornstein Law Firm : Auto Accidents, Medical Malpractice, Construction Injuries : Portland, Lewiston, Bangor, Biddeford, Maine

Is a homeowner liable for car accidents caused by drivers who have been drinking at his home? If the owner did not supply the alcohol and did not know about the alcohol consumption, then courts have found the answer to be no.

While the Maine Law Court has yet to weigh in on this issue, recently, a Maine Superior Court decision found in favor of the homeowner, just as the Supreme Court of Wisconsin previously had.

In Lancaster v. Demo (Somerset Superior Court 1/14/08), Justice Kevin Cuddy dismissed Robert Lancaster’s claim for negligence against Jesse Demo.  Lancaster was injured while a passenger in a pick-up truck driven by Michael Bowden who was intoxicated.  Bowden had been drinking beer he brought to Demo’s family’s camp, who neither provided nor offered Bowden any beer.  Bowden left the Demo property, and later in the evening got into the accident that injured Lancaster, who had never visited the Demo camp. 

Justice Cuddy found that Demo was not liable under the Maine Liquor Liability Act (MLLA) because he did not “serve” any alcohol to Bowden.  Further, Justice Cuddy ruled that Demo was not negligent, as he owed no duty of care to control Bowden’s drinking for the benefit of someone (Lancaster) who wasn’t even on the property.

Interestingly, in court, Lancaster cited a Wisconsin appellate decision in a similar case in support of his claim of negligence against Demo (Nichols v. Progressive Northern Ins., 2007 WI App 110, 730 N.W. 2d 460).  But on March 25, 2008, just three months after Justice Cuddy’s decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision.  The Wisconsin high court, like the Maine Superior Court, held that the homeowner was not liable to occupants of another vehicle who were injured when a teen who had been drinking on the homeowner’s property caused a head-on collision.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a negligence claim against social hosts who did not furnish alcohol was against public policy, and stated that it would be up to the legislature to impose this sort of liability on homeowners.

The Court noted that the accident could have occurred even if the driver hadn't been drinking on the property owner's premises. The Court stated: "If the Nichols' claim were allowed to proceed, the expansion of liability might also include liability for parents who allegedly should have known that drinking would occur on their property while they were absent, based on the proclivities of teenagers in a given area to consume alcohol. Imposing such liability would be only a short step away from imposing strict liability upon property owners for any underage drinking that occurs on property under their control."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A sharply divided Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently overturned the nearly $3 million verdict a Cumberland County jury awarded last year to a young man with a brain injury. 

Tolliver v. Maine Department of Transportation, 2008 ME 83, (May 13, 2008). 

Lucas Tolliver, whose blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit for motorists, was struck and severely injured by a car one night while he was walking down Route 302 in Casco, Maine.  The roadway where the accident took place was under construction and had been recently paved by the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). However, no lines had yet been painted to mark the breakdown lane.  

Lucas’ father and sole guardian sued the driver and MDOT, claiming MDOT had been negligent in its delay of the road striping.  At trial, Laurent Lavigne, a civil engineer, who was an expert witness for Lucas, stated that striping should take place soon after the paving is complete. He further testified that lack of striping for a breakdown lane was hazardous for both drivers and pedestrians and was a substantial contributing factor in causing the accident.

On appeal, MDOT argued that it could not be sued under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), and even if it was subject to a lawsuit, Mr. Lavigne’s testimony was improper.

The jury decided that MDOT was not immune from the lawsuit under the MTCA, however, what the Law Court did find objectionable was the testimony by Mr. Lavigne.  They noted he was not an expert in accident reconstruction and was not qualified to state that the lack of a line marking the breakdown lane actually caused the accident. They found that the trial court’s admission of Mr. Lavigne’s testimony was more than “harmless error” because it swayed the judgment of the jury. Finding that Lucas had not presented sufficient additional evidence to support its theory that the lack of striping caused the accident, the Law Court vacated the verdict and entered judgment in favor of MDOT.

Given the lengthy and passionate opinions issued by various members of the Law Court, it's clear that this was a tough case for the court to decide.  On one hand, whenever possible, the Law Court lets jury verdicts stand in deference to this hallmark of our legal system.  On the other hand, the Law Court is generally reluctant to expand the MTCA to allow exceptions to governmental immunity.  Here, they “split the baby,” as it were, allowing the suit to go forward under the MTCA while overturning the jury’s verdict based on evidentiary issues. 

While this case may have certainly set the precedent for MDOT to be on the hook for future accidents caused by lack of road striping, it ultimately left Lucas Tolliver with a crippling brain injury and no money for his support.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks