26 A.3d 787
Me.2011Background
- Davis, an SMRMC employee, was injured in SMRMC’s parking lot while RC & Sons was contracted to plow and sand.
- At the time of injury, RC & Sons was plowing but had not sanded the lot.
- Davis filed a two-count complaint in January 2010 alleging negligence and a duty to provide reasonably safe premises.
- RC & Sons moved for summary judgment arguing no tort duty owed and that Davis could not be a third-party beneficiary under the contract under Restatement §302.
- The superior court granted summary judgment in RC & Sons’ favor, concluding no duty existed and that Davis could not be a third-party beneficiary; it also distinguished contract and tort claims.
- On appeal, the court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo and ultimately affirms the judgment, holding no cognizable duty for RC & Sons as a non-possessor and that Davis was not an intended third-party beneficiary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Davis an intended third-party beneficiary with a tort duty owed by RC & Sons? | Davis argues she is an intended beneficiary under §302. | RC & Sons argues no duty because not an intended beneficiary and no contract claim against it. | No duty; status immaterial; no intended third-party beneficiary under §302. |
| Did RC & Sons negligently create a dangerous condition by not sanding after plowing? | Davis asserts RC & Sons created an unreasonable danger. | RC & Sons contends it did not create the ice hazard; weather created the condition. | No breach; weather as precipitating cause; non-creation of the dangerous condition by RC & Sons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devine v. Roche Biomedical Labs. (Devine II), 659 A.2d 868 (Me. 1995) (restatement §302 governs third-party contract claims)
- Denman v. Peoples Heritage Bank, Inc., 704 A.2d 411 (Me. 1998) (limits third-party beneficiary contract claims)
- Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932 (Me. 1982) (distinguishes tort from contract liability)
- Colvin v. A R Cable Services-ME, Inc., 697 A.2d 1289 (Me. 1997) (non-possessor may be liable for dangerous condition created on land)
- Quirion v. Geroux, 942 A.2d 670 (Me. 2008) (duty in winter-weather contexts; summary judgment analysis)
- Alexander v. Mitchell, 930 A.2d 1016 (Me. 2007) (limits on tort duty in winter-weather scenarios)