Estate of Lois W. Smith v. Timothy Salvesen, 143 A.3d 780

Background

Eugene and Lois Smith stayed at the Maine Farmhouse, a guesthouse owned by Timothy Salvesen; the Smiths entered via directions and a passcode and chose a second-floor room that was actually a two-level suite connected by a private staircase.
Early morning after the visit, Eugene was awakened by a crash and his wife’s scream; he later found Lois on a landing with a head injury; she died the next day.
Smith sued Salvesen for wrongful death/negligence, alleging the suite’s staircase violated life-safety code standards (unequal riser heights and substandard/angled handrail) and that those defects proximately caused the fall.
At deposition, Eugene testified he did not know how or where his wife fell; Dolby, the plaintiffs’ building-code expert, testified he could not say whether Lois was ascending/descending, whether she used the handrail, or whether the defects caused the fall.
After depositions, both Eugene and Dolby submitted affidavits asserting (respectively) that Eugene assumed Lois fell from the top of the stairs and (Dolby) that the riser and railing defects could be considered critical to an inference of causation.
The superior court excluded those affidavit assertions to the extent they contradicted prior sworn testimony and treated Dolby’s affidavit as an undisclosed new causation opinion; the court granted summary judgment for Salvesen for lack of a prima facie showing of causation. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by disregarding post‑deposition affidavit statements that conflicted with earlier testimony	Smith: affidavits did not directly contradict prior depositions and should be considered	Salvesen: affidavits directly conflict with earlier sworn deposition testimony and may not create issues of fact	Court: may disregard affidavits that contradict prior sworn testimony absent satisfactory explanation; no error in disregarding those statements
Whether Dolby’s affidavit improperly offered a new expert causation opinion beyond his designation	Smith: Dolby’s building‑code opinions support an inference of causation; his affidavit’s causation statement is admissible	Salvesen: Dolby was designated only as a building‑code expert, not as a causation expert; the affidavit offered a new, undisclosed expert opinion	Court: Dolby’s causation assertions contradicted his deposition and exceeded his expert designation; exclusion was proper
Whether the record created a genuine issue of material fact on proximate causation	Smith: code violations (unequal risers, low/misaligned rail) permit a jury to infer causation	Salvesen: plaintiff cannot show where/how Lois fell or that she contacted the defective features; causation would be speculative	Court: evidence insufficient—no proof of location or contact with defects; allowing causation would require speculation; summary judgment affirmed
Whether alternative alleged deficiencies (warnings, lighting, gate, staff) created triable causation issues	Smith: these omissions also breached duty and could have caused the fall	Salvesen: no proof those conditions violated the standard of care or caused the fall	Court: no evidence they breached standard or caused injury; court did not rely on them

Key Cases Cited

Zip Lube, Inc. v. Coastal Sav. Bank, 709 A.2d 733 (recognizing rule that a party may not create a fact issue by submitting an affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony without explanation)
Schindler v. Nilsen, 770 A.2d 638 (affirming exclusion of affidavit testimony directly contrary to prior deposition)
Addy v. Jenkins, Inc., 969 A.2d 935 (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff could not show how/where he fell and causation would be speculative)
Marcoux v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 881 A.2d 1138 (causation may be inferred when plaintiff contacts an identifiable dangerous condition at the moment of injury)
Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 694 A.2d 924 (similar: inference of causation where plaintiff slipped on identifiable debris)
Poulis-Minott v. Smith, 388 F.3d 354 (affidavit portions may be struck when expert testimony exceeds disclosed scope)
Estate of Smith v. Cumberland Cty., 60 A.3d 759 (causation is a question of fact that may be inferred but cannot rest on mere speculation)