This text of Almighty Waste, Inc. v. Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation (Almighty Waste, Inc. v. Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Almighty Waste, Inc. v. Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation, (Me. Super. Ct. 2017).
Opinion
( (
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-16-110
ALMIGHTY WASTE, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION v. ) ) JUN 9 '1'"/ PM4:05 MID-MAINE WASTE ACTION ) ANDRO SUPERIOR cou~ CORPORATION ) ) Defendant. )
Before the court is Defendant Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation's motion for
summary judgment on Plaintiff Almighty Waste, Inc.'s negligence claim. For the
following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted.
I. Background
On September 2, 2014, a driver for Plaintiff drove a tractor truck owned by
Plaintiff onto a scale owned and operated by Defendant, which collapsed causing
significant damage to the truck. (Supp.'g S.M.F. <[<[ 3-5.) On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a complaint alleging Defendant's scale was in serious disrepair, had significant
rusting, and was otherwise in such condition that it collapsed. (Supp.'g S.M.F. <[<[ 1-2;
Pl.'s Comp!.<[ 7.) Plaintiff's only designated expert is expected to testify only on the
subject of costs to repair the truck. (Supp.'g S.M.F. <[ 7.) On February 27, 2016,
Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment.
II. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate, if based on the parties' statement of material
facts and the cited record, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 ME 20, <[ 11, 989
A. 2d 733; Dyer v. Dep't of Transport., 2008 ME 106, <[ 14,951 A.2d 821. "[A] fact is
1 of 4 material if it could potentially affect the outcome of the case." Reliance Nat'l Indem. v.
Knowles Indus. Servs., 2005 ME 29,
exists where the fact finder must choose between competing versions of the truth. Id.
(citing Univ. of Me. Found. v. Fleet Bank ofMe., 2003 ME 20,
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the materials in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Dyer, 2008 ME 106,
court will consider "only the portions of the record referred to, and the material facts set
forth in the [M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)] statements." F.R. Carroll, Inc. v. TD Bank, N.A., 2010 ME
115,
judgment must point to specific facts showing that a factual dispute does exist in order
to avoid a summary judgment. Watt v. Unifirst Corp., 2009 ME 47,
Reliance Nat'l Indem., 2005 ME 29,
III. Discussion
In support of the motion for summary judgment, Defendant argues Plaintiff is
unable to prove negligence because they have not designated an expert on the issues of
breach of duty of care or causation. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 4.) The deadline for Plaintiff's
designation was December 26, 2016 (set by the scheduling order.) On December 22,
2016, Plaintiff'designated their only expert witness to be a damage appraiser who is I
expected to testify about the costs to repair the truck. (Supp.'g S.M.F.
maintains that an expert is not required to prove negligence in this case. (Pl.'s Opp'n to
Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 4.) Instead, Plaintiff's evidence to prove cause is their driver's
personal observation that the scale was comprised of rusted pieces of steel, and an
alleged conversation that their driver had with Mid-Maine employees who said that II they "knew the scale was junk" and that they were surprised the scale lasted as long as
it did." (Opp. S.M.F.
2 of 4 (
making those statements. (Def.'s Reply S.M.F. <[ 5.) Plaintiff argues they are not
claiming that the scale malfunctioned, but that rust caused its collapse. (Pl.'s Opp'n to
Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 4.)
Plaintiffs are required to establish a prima facie case for duty, breach, causation,
and damages to survive summary judgment. Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 2006 ME 47, <[ 10,
896 A.2d 265. Expert testimony is required where a matter in issue is "within the
knowledge of experts only, and not within the common knowledge of lay [persons]."
Bannon v. Atl. Comfort Sys., No. CV-15-0084, 2017 Me. Super. LEXIS 67, at *9 (Apr. 19,
testimony may not be necessary, however, "where the negligence and harmful results
are sufficiently obvious as to lie within common knowledge." Bannon, 2017 Me. Super.
LEXIS 67, at *9 (quoting Cyr, 150 Me. at 252, 108 A.2d at 318); Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 2000 ME 63, <[ 31, 748 A.2d 961, 972 (it does not take an expert to know that a
pharmacy filling a prescription with the wrong drug and failing to take the steps in
place to check for the wrong drug is negligence); Bannon, 2017 Me. Super. LEXIS 67, at
*9 (the standard of care that an HVAC servicer would owe when removing a key
component of a humidifier, rendering the humidifier inoperable, and failing to replace
it or inform the customer falls suffic:i'.ently within the sphere of common knowledge so
as not to require an expert witness.)
Plaintiff argues that it is within the knowledge of a factfinder to determine that
rust and disrepair caused the scale to collapse. (Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 4.)
However, the issue of cause in this case includes not just the external rust that could
have been visible to Plaintiff's driver, but also the adequate maintenance, repair, and
inspection of a commercial machine. A layperson has no basis on which to determine
these issues. See Sirles v. CPM Constructors, No. CV-11-408, 2012 Me. Super. LEXIS 113,
3 of 4 at *6 (Aug. 9, 2012.) Defendant does not dispute their duty to maintain the scale, and
admits that the scale was externally rusty. (Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot.
Summ. J. 2, 5.) However, while Plaintiff's alleged observation of rust could establish
that the scale's collapse was foreseeable, to ask a factfinder to also infer actual causation
from conflicting and inconclusive evidence from lay witnesses would replace fact
finding with conjecture. See Tolliver v. DOT, 2008 ME 83, 'l[ 44, 948 A.2d 1223.
Accordingly, the court concludes that expert testimony is required to prove liability.
Even if this court were to decide that expert testimony was not necessary and that
Defendant's employee's alleged statements were admissible pursuant to Maine Rule of
Evidence 80l(d)(2)(D), Plaintiff does not claim that they have knowledge as to the
maintenance, repair, and inspection of the scale.
IV. Conclusion
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to enter this Order on the civil docket by reference pursuant
to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).
Date:
4of 4 ALMIGHTY WASTE INC - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. Attorney for: ALMIGHTY WASTE INC Docket No AUBSC-CV-2016-00110 MICHAEL DUBOIS - RETAINED 588 MAIN ST LEWISTON ME 04240 DOCKET RECORD
vs MID MAINE WASTE ACTION CORPORATION - DEFENDANT
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
( (
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-16-110
ALMIGHTY WASTE, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION v. ) ) JUN 9 '1'"/ PM4:05 MID-MAINE WASTE ACTION ) ANDRO SUPERIOR cou~ CORPORATION ) ) Defendant. )
Before the court is Defendant Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation's motion for
summary judgment on Plaintiff Almighty Waste, Inc.'s negligence claim. For the
following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted.
I. Background
On September 2, 2014, a driver for Plaintiff drove a tractor truck owned by
Plaintiff onto a scale owned and operated by Defendant, which collapsed causing
significant damage to the truck. (Supp.'g S.M.F. <[<[ 3-5.) On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a complaint alleging Defendant's scale was in serious disrepair, had significant
rusting, and was otherwise in such condition that it collapsed. (Supp.'g S.M.F. <[<[ 1-2;
Pl.'s Comp!.<[ 7.) Plaintiff's only designated expert is expected to testify only on the
subject of costs to repair the truck. (Supp.'g S.M.F. <[ 7.) On February 27, 2016,
Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment.
II. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate, if based on the parties' statement of material
facts and the cited record, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 ME 20, <[ 11, 989
A. 2d 733; Dyer v. Dep't of Transport., 2008 ME 106, <[ 14,951 A.2d 821. "[A] fact is
1 of 4 material if it could potentially affect the outcome of the case." Reliance Nat'l Indem. v.
Knowles Indus. Servs., 2005 ME 29,
exists where the fact finder must choose between competing versions of the truth. Id.
(citing Univ. of Me. Found. v. Fleet Bank ofMe., 2003 ME 20,
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the materials in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Dyer, 2008 ME 106,
court will consider "only the portions of the record referred to, and the material facts set
forth in the [M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)] statements." F.R. Carroll, Inc. v. TD Bank, N.A., 2010 ME
115,
judgment must point to specific facts showing that a factual dispute does exist in order
to avoid a summary judgment. Watt v. Unifirst Corp., 2009 ME 47,
Reliance Nat'l Indem., 2005 ME 29,
III. Discussion
In support of the motion for summary judgment, Defendant argues Plaintiff is
unable to prove negligence because they have not designated an expert on the issues of
breach of duty of care or causation. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 4.) The deadline for Plaintiff's
designation was December 26, 2016 (set by the scheduling order.) On December 22,
2016, Plaintiff'designated their only expert witness to be a damage appraiser who is I
expected to testify about the costs to repair the truck. (Supp.'g S.M.F.
maintains that an expert is not required to prove negligence in this case. (Pl.'s Opp'n to
Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 4.) Instead, Plaintiff's evidence to prove cause is their driver's
personal observation that the scale was comprised of rusted pieces of steel, and an
alleged conversation that their driver had with Mid-Maine employees who said that II they "knew the scale was junk" and that they were surprised the scale lasted as long as
it did." (Opp. S.M.F.
2 of 4 (
making those statements. (Def.'s Reply S.M.F. <[ 5.) Plaintiff argues they are not
claiming that the scale malfunctioned, but that rust caused its collapse. (Pl.'s Opp'n to
Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 4.)
Plaintiffs are required to establish a prima facie case for duty, breach, causation,
and damages to survive summary judgment. Maddocks v. Whitcomb, 2006 ME 47, <[ 10,
896 A.2d 265. Expert testimony is required where a matter in issue is "within the
knowledge of experts only, and not within the common knowledge of lay [persons]."
Bannon v. Atl. Comfort Sys., No. CV-15-0084, 2017 Me. Super. LEXIS 67, at *9 (Apr. 19,
testimony may not be necessary, however, "where the negligence and harmful results
are sufficiently obvious as to lie within common knowledge." Bannon, 2017 Me. Super.
LEXIS 67, at *9 (quoting Cyr, 150 Me. at 252, 108 A.2d at 318); Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 2000 ME 63, <[ 31, 748 A.2d 961, 972 (it does not take an expert to know that a
pharmacy filling a prescription with the wrong drug and failing to take the steps in
place to check for the wrong drug is negligence); Bannon, 2017 Me. Super. LEXIS 67, at
*9 (the standard of care that an HVAC servicer would owe when removing a key
component of a humidifier, rendering the humidifier inoperable, and failing to replace
it or inform the customer falls suffic:i'.ently within the sphere of common knowledge so
as not to require an expert witness.)
Plaintiff argues that it is within the knowledge of a factfinder to determine that
rust and disrepair caused the scale to collapse. (Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 4.)
However, the issue of cause in this case includes not just the external rust that could
have been visible to Plaintiff's driver, but also the adequate maintenance, repair, and
inspection of a commercial machine. A layperson has no basis on which to determine
these issues. See Sirles v. CPM Constructors, No. CV-11-408, 2012 Me. Super. LEXIS 113,
3 of 4 at *6 (Aug. 9, 2012.) Defendant does not dispute their duty to maintain the scale, and
admits that the scale was externally rusty. (Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot.
Summ. J. 2, 5.) However, while Plaintiff's alleged observation of rust could establish
that the scale's collapse was foreseeable, to ask a factfinder to also infer actual causation
from conflicting and inconclusive evidence from lay witnesses would replace fact
finding with conjecture. See Tolliver v. DOT, 2008 ME 83, 'l[ 44, 948 A.2d 1223.
Accordingly, the court concludes that expert testimony is required to prove liability.
Even if this court were to decide that expert testimony was not necessary and that
Defendant's employee's alleged statements were admissible pursuant to Maine Rule of
Evidence 80l(d)(2)(D), Plaintiff does not claim that they have knowledge as to the
maintenance, repair, and inspection of the scale.
IV. Conclusion
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to enter this Order on the civil docket by reference pursuant
to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).
Date:
4of 4 ALMIGHTY WASTE INC - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. Attorney for: ALMIGHTY WASTE INC Docket No AUBSC-CV-2016-00110 MICHAEL DUBOIS - RETAINED 588 MAIN ST LEWISTON ME 04240 DOCKET RECORD
vs MID MAINE WASTE ACTION CORPORATION - DEFENDANT
Attorney for: MID MAINE WASTE ACTION CORPORATION JOSEPH L CAHOON - RETAINED 09/26/2016 RICHARDSON WHITMAN LARGE & BADGER 465 CONGRESS STREET PO BOX 9545 PORTLAND ME 04112-9545
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER NON-PERSONAL INJURY TORT Filing Date: 09/01/2016
Docket Events: 09/01/2016 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 09/01/2016
09/01/2016 Party(s): ALMIGHTY WASTE INC ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 09/01/2016 Plaintiff's Attorney: MICHAEL DUBOIS
09/16/2016 Party(s): MID MAINE WASTE ACTION CORPORATION SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 09/07/2016 THROUGH MARK BOWER , ESQ.
09/16/2016 Party(s): MID MAINE WASTE ACTION CORPORATION SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 09/15/2016
09/26/2016 Party(s): MID MAINE WASTE ACTION CORPORATION RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FILED ON 09/26/2016
09/26/2016 Party(s): MID MAINE WASTE ACTION CORPORATION ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 09/26/2016 Defendant's Attorney: JOSEPH L CAHOON
09/26/2016 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 09/26/2016 MARYGAY KENNEDY, JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
09/26/2016 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 05/26/2017
09/26/2016 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 09/26/2016 MARYGAY KENNEDY, JUSTICE
12/09/2016 ADR - NOTICE OF ADR PROCESS/NEUTRAL FILED ON 12/02/2016 MEDIATION SET FOR JANUARY 2 5, 2017 WITH JENNIFER FERGUSON, ESQ .