Ashlock v. Dumaine
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss CIVIL ACTION , DOCKET NQ. CV-W-345 1Ijf) - KE- N--- >-- / / '
~I
-) .'
JERRY ASHLOCK, and BARBARA NICCOLI-HILTZ and RODNEY HILTZ, individually and as next friends of JANE DOE
Plaintiffs
v. DECISION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER 1. DUMAINE
Defendant
Plaintiffs Jerry Ashlock (Jane Doe's father), Barbara Niccoli-Hiltz (Jane Doe's
mother), and Rodney Hiltz (Jane Doe's stepfather) have filed a complaint against the
defendant and 'seek damages as individuals and as next friends of Jane Doe for
negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive damages. The defendant moves pursuant to
M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the individual claims of these plaintiffs.
On this motion to dismiss, the court treats as admitted the material allegations of
the complaint. Plimpton v. Gerrard, 668 A.2d 882,885 (Me. 1995). The question for the
court is whether those allegations create a legally sufficient claim upon which relief can
be granted. Id. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in
part.
1. Count I: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
There is no general duty to avoid negligently causing emotional harm to others.
Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158, <[ 18, 784 A.2d 18, 25. The Law Court has "recognized a
duty to act reasonably to avoid emotional harm to others in very limited circumstances:
first, in claims commonly referred to as bystander liability actions; and second, in
circumstances in which a special relationship exists between the actor and the person
emotionally harmed." Id. CJI 19, 784 A.2d at 25.
The scope of the duty in parent bystander liability cases is limited to those
situations in which parents actually witness their child receiving an injury. Cameron v.
Pepin, 610 A.2d 279,284 (Me. 1992). The plaintiffs argue that this case is distinguishable
from Cameron and Curtis because the ongoing sexual relationship between the
defendant and their daughter made them witnesses to the ongoing harms incurred by
their daughter. There is no basis on which to extend the explicit requirement that
parents actually witness the child receiving the injury. While these parents may have
been subjected to witnessing the day-to-day harm of the injury, they did not witness
their daughter receiving the injury itself.
Alternatively, plaintiffs must establish that defendant, as the educator of their
daughter, is under a general obligation for their benefit as parents. Brian R. v.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of NY, Inc., 1999 ME 144, CJI 11, 738 A.2d 839, 844.
Plaintiffs note that Brian R. dealt with liability of a third party church, not the
perpetrator, and rely instead on Rowe v. Bennett. That case, however, concerns the
person harmed and not the parents of the person harmed. Rowe v. Bennett, 514 A.2d
802, 807 (Me. 1986). In the absence of case law to the contrary, a teacher has no general
obligation to the parents of his student to avoid negligently causing them emotional
harm.
II. Count II: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
In order to be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress: (1) defendant
must have intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress to the parents
or must have been certain or substantially certain that such distress to the parents
would result from his conduct; (2) the conduct must be "so extreme and outrageous as
to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, utterly
intolerable in a civilized community"; (3) defendant's actions must cause the parents
emotional distress; and (4) the parents emotional distress must be "so severe that no
reasonable person could be expected to endure it." Curtis, <[ 10, 784 A.2d at 22-23
(quoting Champagne v. Mid-Maine Medical Center, 1998 ME 87, CJI IS, 711 A.2d 842, 847
(articulating the standard on a summary judgment motion)). The defendant argues
that there are no allegations that he engaged in sexual acts with plaintiffs' daughter
with the intent to cause them emotional distress or was certain or substantially certain
that such distress to the parents would occur because of his actions.
The plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. This
court cannot say beyond doubt that the plaintiffs are entitled to no relief under any set
of facts they might prove in support of count II. See Hall v. Board of Environmental
Protection, 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me. 1985); Champagne, <[CJI 15-16, 711 A.2d at 847.
III. Count II: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
[B]ecause the law does not generally require individuals to act for the benefit of others, the factual foundations of an alleged fiduciary relationship must be pled with specificity. Simple recitations of a trusting relationship will not suffice for identifying a fiduciary duty. In brder to survive a motion to dismiss a clam for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts constituting the alleged relationship with sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine whether, if true, such facts could give rise to a fiduciary relationship.
Brian R., CJI 21, 738 A.2d at 846-47. Maine law has not recognized that a teacher owes a
fiduciary duty to the parents of his student. There are no facts alleged that could give
rise to a fiduciary relationship in this case.
IV. Count I: Punitive Damages
The plaintiffs argue that defendant's actions were "so outrageous" that malice
against them as injured parties can be implied and an award of punitive damages is
available. Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353, 1361 (Me. 1985). This determination is
fact specific. Based on the allegations in count II, the court cannot conclude that the
plaintiffs are entitled to no relief based on any set of facts they might prove. Hall, 498
A.2d at 266.
The entry is
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiffs Jerry Ashlock, Barbara Niccoli-Hiltz, and Rodney Hiltz's individual claims in Counts I and III of Plaintiffs' Complaint are DISMISSED.
Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant and against Plaintiffs Jerry Ashlock, Barbara Niccoli-Hiltz, and Rodney Hiltz on their individual claims in Counts I and III.
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Jerry Ashlock, Barbara Niccoli-Hiltz, and Rodney Hiltz's individual claims in Counts II and IV is DENIED.
•
Date: May 30, 2008 ancy Mills Justice, Superior Court
JERRY ASHLOCK - PLAINTIFF OBO SUPERIOR COURT 149 NORTH MAINE STREET KENNEBEC, ss. NORTH MONMOUTH ME 04265 Docket No AUGSC-CV-2007-00345 Attorney for: JERRY ASHLOCK MICHELLE ALLOTT - RETAINED 11/26/2007 FARRIS LAW, P.A. DOCKET RECORD 251 WATER STREET PO BOX 120 GARDINER ME 04345-0120
BARBARA NICCOLI-HILTZ - PLAINTIFF OBO 83 RED TOP DRIVE MONMOUTH ME 04259 RODNEY HILTZ - PLAINTIFF aBO 83 RED TOP DRIVE MONMOUTH ME 04259
JANE DOE - MINOR PLAINTIFF vs CHRISTOPHER I DUMAINE - DEFENDANT 782 MAIN STREET, READFIELD ME 04355 Attorney for: CHRISTOPHER I DUMAINE WALTER MCKEE - RETAINED LIPMAN & KATZ & MCKEE, PA 227 WATER STREET PO BOX 1051 AUGUSTA ME 04332-1051
Attorney for: CHRISTOPHER I DUMAINE JAMES A BILLINGS - RETAINED LIPMAN & KATZ & MCKEE, PA 227 WATER STREET PO BOX 1051 AUGUSTA ME 04332-1051
KENNEBEC SAVINGS BANK - TRUSTEE GARDINER SAVINGS BANK - TRUSTEE KEY BANK - TRUSTEE BANGOR SAVINGS BANK - TRUSTEE BANK OF AMERICA - TRUSTEE NORTHEAST BANK - TRUSTEE TD BANKNORTH - TRUSTEE
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER PERSONAL INJURY TORT Filing Date: 11/26/2007
Docket Events: 11/26/2007 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 11/26/2007
11/26/2007 Party(s): JERRY ASHLOCK ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 11/26/2007 Plaintiff's Attorney: MICHELLE ALLOTT
11/26/2007 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION CASE FILE NOTICE SENT ON 11/26/2007 Plaintiff's Attorney: MICHELLE ALLOTT Page 1 of 5 Printed on: 06/02/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00345
DOCKET RECORD
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ashlock v. Dumaine (Ashlock v. Dumaine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.