Timothy Bell v. Randall Dawson, 2013 ME 108

Timothy Bell, 13, was injured after skateboarding from the Dawsons' driveway into the street and being struck by a car.
Teresa Bell sued the Dawsons for negligent supervision and for negligently creating or allowing dangerous topographical conditions.
Dawsons argued no custodial duty existed once Timothy left the property and returned to his parents' home.
Timothy stayed overnight May 9, 2009, at the Dawsons' home; Rose admitted poor supervision due to drinking.
The accident occurred the following morning after Timothy left the Dawsons' property; no one witnessed the exact time of departure.
Superior Court granted summary judgment for the Dawsons on both claims; Bell appealed and the Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Dawsons owe a duty of care for negligent supervision after Timothy left their premises?	Bell asserts custodial duty continued.	Dawsons' custodial duty ended when Timothy returned home.	No duty after Timothy left the property.
Did untrimmed vegetation create a triable issue on duty to prevent off-premises harm?	Vegetation obstructed drivers' view and caused the accident.	No artificial condition duty to trim; no unreasonable risk established.	No duty to trim vegetation imposed; no causation shown.

Radley v. Fish, 856 A.2d 1196 (Me. 2004) (landowner not liable for natural conditions off-premises; duty to off-premises observers limited)
Gniadek v. Camp Sunshine at Sebago Lake, Inc., 11 A.3d 308 (Me. 2011) (duty exists in custodial relationships; scope is temporal and geographic)
Parrish v. Wright, 828 A.2d 778 (Me. 2003) (artificial condition duty depends on unreasonable risk of harm)
McIlroy v. Gibson’s Apple Orchard, 43 A.3d 948 (Me. 2012) (proximate cause issues distinguished from this case)
Estate of Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 60 A.3d 759 (Me. 2013) (negligence elements and burden on plaintiff to prove causation)