Davis v. Dionne
2011 ME 90
Me.2011Background
- Davis was injured after Rodriguez, while intoxicated, drove away from a Crescent Lumber trip bus and struck him in the Crescent Lumber parking lot.
- The fishing charter and dinner trip to Bar Harbor was organized by Dionne for Brockway-Smith Co., with Crescent Lumber chartering a Cyr Bus Line vehicle; Brockway reimbursed Crescent for the bus.
- David Webb drove the Cyr bus; alcohol was pre-purchased by Dionne (beer and rum) for participants, and Rodriguez drank on a boat and at the Bar Harbor restaurant.
- Cyr's invoice prohibited consumption of alcohol by passengers, but it is disputed whether Webb knew passengers were drinking on the bus.
- Upon returning, a scuffle occurred; Rodriguez exited the bus, some participants approached his truck, and he proceeded to drive and injure Davis.
- Rodriguez later pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and OUI; Davis’s MLLA claims were dismissed as untimely; remaining claims are common law negligence against Cyr, Webb, Brockway, and Dionne.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of Cyr/Webb as common carrier | Cyr/Webb had to prevent Rodriguez from driving after exit. | Duty ends at safe discharge; no in loco parentis obligation or inter-passenger protection. | No extended duty; common carrier duty ends at safe discharge. |
| Nature of Brockway/Dionne duty post-MLLA | Dionne's role and alcohol provision create a duty and potential liability. | MLLA exclusivity bars such negligence claims and no independent duty arises. | No liability; MLLA claims dismissed and no independent duty recognized. |
| Fiduciary or special relationship duty | Dionne/Brockway created a special relationship warranting protection against third parties. | General rule: no duty to protect others from third parties absent specific circumstances. | Declines to recognize a generalized fiduciary duty; no special relationship established. |
| Effect of Cyr’s alcohol prohibition on duty | Invoice statement could impose duty beyond standard care. | Invoice language does not alter the standard of care for Cyr/Webb. | No new duty created; standard remains that of a common carrier. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A.2d 733 (Me. 2010) (summary judgment standard and Beal v. Allstate framework)
- Thibodeau v. Slaney, 755 A.2d 1051 (Me. 2000) (exclusivity and duty considerations for negligent actions)
- Jackson v. Tedd-Lait Post No. 75, Am. Legion, 723 A.2d 1220 (Me. 1999) (duty analysis for special relationships)
- Mastriano v. Blyer, 779 A.2d 951 (Me. 2001) (common carrier duties and safe discharge standard)
- Belyea v. Shiretown Motor Inn, LP, 2 A.3d 276 (Me. 2010) (elements of negligence; duty, breach, causation )
- Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 871 A.2d 1208 (Me. 2005) (fiduciary-like duties and protected classes guidance)
- Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc., 738 A.2d 839 (Me. 1999) (special relationship and fiduciary duty considerations)