ABT & a CO., INC. v. State

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

ABT & a CO., INC. v. State

644 A.2d 460, 1994 Me. LEXIS 119

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 8, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 644 A.2d 460 (ABT & a CO., INC. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ABT & a CO., INC. v. State, 644 A.2d 460, 1994 Me. LEXIS 119 (Me. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

RUDMAN, Justice.

ABT & A Co., Inc. (the Company) appeals from the entry of a summary judgment in the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Pier-son, J.) holding that the State of Maine is not responsible, as a matter of law, for damages to the Company’s property caused by two escapees from a correctional facility. We affirm the judgment.

On September 14,1991, two inmates at the South Windham Correctional Center cut through a fence and escaped from the facility. The Company alleges that two days later the escapees broke into its car rental operation and stole a car, which was never recovered. The Company claims that the State was negligent in allowing the inmates to escape and then steal the car.

We reject the Company’s argument that the State is liable for the acts of escaped prisoners pursuant to an exception to the general immunity afforded under the Maine Tort Claims Act. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1) (1980). We have held that the section of the Act that imposes liability on the State for its “negligent acts or omissions in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building,” 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A(2) (Supp. 1993), applies only to the State’s acts in the care or operation of its buildings and property, not to the State’s care or supervision of people in its charge. Jensen v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 574 A2d 885, 886 (Me.1990); Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535 A.2d 421, 424 (Me.1987). 1 See also Lovejoy v. State, 544 A.2d 750, 751 (Me.1988) (exceptions to immunity afforded under the Act must be narrowly construed). The State’s efforts to prevent prisoners from escaping do not qualify as “operation or maintenance of public buddings” and therefore section 8104-A(2) does not impose liability on the State for the acts of escaped prisoners.

The Company’s remaining arguments are without merit.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

1

. We reject the Company’s attempt to distinguish the “AMHI cases.” The fact that the instant case involves a correctional facility while the other cases involved a mental health facility is irrelevant — they are both state-owned buildings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RUDMAN, Justice.

ABT & A Co., Inc. (the Company) appeals from the entry of a summary judgment in the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Pier-son, J.) holding that the State of Maine is not responsible, as a matter of law, for damages to the Company’s property caused by two escapees from a correctional facility. We affirm the judgment.

On September 14,1991, two inmates at the South Windham Correctional Center cut through a fence and escaped from the facility. The Company alleges that two days later the escapees broke into its car rental operation and stole a car, which was never recovered. The Company claims that the State was negligent in allowing the inmates to escape and then steal the car.

We reject the Company’s argument that the State is liable for the acts of escaped prisoners pursuant to an exception to the general immunity afforded under the Maine Tort Claims Act. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1) (1980). We have held that the section of the Act that imposes liability on the State for its “negligent acts or omissions in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building,” 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A(2) (Supp. 1993), applies only to the State’s acts in the care or operation of its buildings and property, not to the State’s care or supervision of people in its charge. Jensen v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 574 A2d 885, 886 (Me.1990); Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535 A.2d 421, 424 (Me.1987). 1 See also Lovejoy v. State, 544 A.2d 750, 751 (Me.1988) (exceptions to immunity afforded under the Act must be narrowly construed). The State’s efforts to prevent prisoners from escaping do not qualify as “operation or maintenance of public buddings” and therefore section 8104-A(2) does not impose liability on the State for the acts of escaped prisoners.

The Company’s remaining arguments are without merit.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

1

. We reject the Company’s attempt to distinguish the “AMHI cases.” The fact that the instant case involves a correctional facility while the other cases involved a mental health facility is irrelevant — they are both state-owned buildings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 A.2d 460, 1994 Me. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abt-a-co-inc-v-state-me-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack