279 A.3d 393
Me.2022Background
- Kim Boivin, a crane operator at NewPage, was asked to operate an overhead crane while two Somatex employees (Munster and Croft) were repairing it; she initially refused but ultimately complied.
- While Boivin operated the crane, Munster rode on it, stood up unexpectedly, was crushed between a truss and the moving crane, fell ~30 feet, and died; Boivin alleges she developed PTSD and related disorders from witnessing the event.
- Boivin sued Somatex for negligence (complaint did not specify general negligence vs. negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED)).
- Somatex moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty to Boivin under Maine law; the trial court granted summary judgment, finding Boivin offered only conclusory proof that her PTSD constituted a physical injury and that Somatex owed no independent duty for emotional harm.
- On appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: Boivin failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that she suffered a physical injury for general negligence, and she failed to show the limited circumstances (bystander or special relationship) that create a duty for NIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boivin established a physical injury sufficient to support a general negligence claim | PTSD is both a physical and mental disorder (forensic psychiatrist affidavit); Boivin alleges physical symptoms and inability to work | No competent evidence that Somatex caused any physical injury; plaintiff’s assertions are conclusory | Court: No genuine dispute of physical injury; plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing; general negligence claim fails |
| Whether Somatex owed a duty to avoid causing emotional harm (NIED) under Maine’s limited categories | Boivin may recover under NIED for severe emotional distress she suffered | Somatex owed no independent duty: Boivin was not a close relative/bystander nor was there a special relationship | Court: No duty under bystander or special-relationship doctrines; NIED claim fails |
| Whether plaintiff met her prima facie burden at summary judgment on duty and damages elements | Presented affidavit and testimony of severe PTSD symptoms and expert statement about PTSD’s physical/mental nature | Defendant showed absence of disputed material fact as to duty and physical injury | Court: Duty is a question of law; plaintiff did not produce sufficient admissible facts to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether PTSD can be treated as a physical injury as a matter of law in this case | PTSD may constitute physical injury per medical consensus (argued but not proven here) | Even if possible in theory, plaintiff provided no evidence that PTSD in this case qualifies as physical injury | Court: Declined to decide the broader question; here plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to show physical injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Toto v. Knowles, 261 A.3d 233 (procedural standard for summary judgment)
- Chartier v. Farm Fam. Life Ins. Co., 113 A.3d 234 (summary judgment burden and standard)
- Quirion v. Geroux, 942 A.2d 670 (elements of negligence require duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Curtis v. Porter, 784 A.2d 18 (no general duty to avoid negligently causing emotional harm; limited NIED categories)
- Devine v. Roche Biomedical Lab’ys, 637 A.2d 441 (duty required for recovery of emotional or physical harm)
- Est. of Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 60 A.3d 759 (distinguishing legal question of duty from factual injury)
- Polk v. Town of Lubec, 756 A.2d 510 (conclusory allegations insufficient to avoid summary judgment)
- Coward v. Gagne & Son Concrete Blocks, Inc., 238 A.3d 254 (bystander NIED recoverability requires close relationship)
- Culbert v. Sampson’s Supermarkets, Inc., 444 A.2d 433 (NIED doctrinal history)
- Gammon v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Me., 534 A.2d 1282 (examples of special-relationship NIED recovery)
- Bolton v. Caine, 584 A.2d 615 (special-relationship NIED recovery)
- Rowe v. Bennett, 514 A.2d 802 (special-relationship NIED recovery)
- Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, 269 A.2d 117 (historical requirement of physical manifestations for emotional harm claims)
- Michaud v. Great N. Nekoosa Corp., 715 A.2d 955 (direct vs. bystander victim distinctions)
- Cameron v. Pepin, 610 A.2d 279 (bystander vs direct victim framework)
- Champagne v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr., 711 A.2d 842 (NIED scope discussion)