McIlroy v. Gibson's Apple Orchard
2012 ME 59
| Me. | 2012Background
- McIlroy was seriously injured at the intersection of U.S. Route 2 and North Road in Bethel on October 13, 2007; he had the right-of-way and did not collide with Small or any other vehicle.
- Gibson's Apple Orchard placed an approximately eight-foot-square temporary sign near the intersection for apple-picking season; exact location on the day of the accident could not be determined, and the sign did not obstruct views at the time of the accident.
- McIlroy argues two causation theories: (1) Small moved into McIlroy’s lane to see around the sign, causing him to lose control; (2) Small’s movements around the sign prompted McIlroy to misinterpret her intent and react defensively.
- Small testified she stopped at multiple points due to the sign and road bends, and eventually could see traffic with the sign behind her; one driver corroborated her view that the sign affected visibility.
- Small’s expert could not determine the sign’s contribution due to lack of precise location data; his view depended on McIlroy’s account of Small’s actions.
- The Superior Court granted Gibson’s summary judgment in 2010; McIlroy appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded for trial-ready consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sign’s proximity could proximately cause the accident. | McIlroy argues the sign’s size/location forced Small into McIlroy’s lane or created a view obstruction. | Gibson's contends there is insufficient evidence that the sign’s location and behavior of Small causally connected to the accident. | Yes; a rational jury could find proximate causation; the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Dionne, 2011 ME 90 (Me. 2011) (negligence elements; proximate cause required for liability)
- Houde v. Millett, 2001 ME 183 (Me. 2001) (summary judgment standard; speculations not enough for causation)
- Dyer v. Me. Drilling & Blasting, Inc., 2009 ME 126 (Me. 2009) (proximate cause question for jury unless only conjecture supports a verdict)
- Webb v. Haas, 1999 ME 74 (Me. 1999) (causation requires substantial factor in producing harm; fact-finder role)
- Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000 ME 63 (Me. 2000) (causation defined; reasonable connection required between act and injury)
- North East Ins. Co. v. Young, 2011 ME 89 (Me. 2011) (causation and material facts; genuine issue for fact-finder)