Coro v. Hadley

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 20, 2016
• Docket: KENcv-15-169
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

L

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-15-169

SHELLY CORO, as Personal ) Representative of the ESTATE OF ) GERALD GIROUX ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY RICHARD E. HADLEY d /b / a R. E. ) JUDGMENT HADLEY and MAURICE ) FRAPPIER, JR., ) ) Defendants. )

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Background

On August 26, 2014, Mr. Gerald Giroux, as he attempted to exit his home,

fell down the steps and hit his head causing a catastrophic head injury which led

to his death. Plaintiff Shelly Coro, Personal Representative of the Estate of Gerald

Giroux, brings this action for faulty work performed for Mr. Giroux in the

construction of a carport for his home. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' negligent

work kept the front door from opening completely. Plaintiff alleges that the front

door was only able to open a little more than a foot, that Mr. Giroux got caught

between the door and the doorframe, cut himself, lost his balance, and fell down

the stairs, hitting his head at the base of the stairwell. According to Plaintiff, Mr.

Giroux's wife, Mrs. Elena Giroux, saw Mr. Giroux open the door, get caught, cut

himself and lose his balance. She did not see the fall, but instead heard the loud

crashing sound upon his landing. Defendant contends that Mrs. Giroux did not

witness enough of the event to provide valuable information concerning how

1 Mr. Giroux fell. Mr. Giroux did not say anything concerning the fall between the

fall and when he passed away. Mrs. Giroux was the only witness. Mrs. Giroux

passed away shortly after her husband.•

Plaintiff brings the following claims: Survival Action pursuant to 18-A

M.R.S. § 3-804, Wrongful Death pursuant to 18-A M.R.S. § 3-804, Conscious Pain

and Suffering pursuant to 18-A M.R.S. § 3-804(c), Unfair Trade Practices Act

pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 205-A and Home Construction Contracts pursuant to 10

M.R.S. § 1487. Defendant moves the Court for Summary Judgment.

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate if, based on the parties' statements of

material fact and the cited record, there is no genuine issue of material fact and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c);

Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, <[ 14, 951 A.2d 821. "A material fact is one

that can affect the outcome of the case. A genuine issue of material fact exists

when the fact finder must choose between competing versions of the truth." Id.

(citations omitted). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court

reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

When the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden on a

claim or defense, the moving party must establish the existence of each element

of the claim or defense without dispute as to any material fact in the record in

order to obtain summary judgment. Cach, LLC v. Kulas, 2011 ME 70, <[ 8, 21 A.3d

1015. If the motion for summary judgment is properly supported, then the

1 Mrs. Giroux was deposed prior to her passing.

2 (_

burden shifts to the non-moving party to respond with specific facts indicating a

genuine issue for trial in order to avoid summary judgment. M.R. Civ. P. 56(e).

III. Discussion

Defendants argue that they are entitled to Summary Judgment because

Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of negligence. In order to

establish a prima facie case for negligence, a plaintiff must establish the elements

of duty, breach of duty, causation, and harm. Davis v. RC & Sons Paving, Inc.,

2011 ME 88,

any evidence to support the argument that the alleged negligence on the part of

Defendants caused Mr. Giroux's injury. Therefore, the Defendants claim that

there is no question of material fact and Defendants are entitled to summary

judgment.

In order to make out a prima facie case for the element of causation, a plaintiff

must provide evidence that but for the defendant's breach of duty, the harm

would not have occurred and that the defendant's breach of duty proximately

caused the harm.

Evidence is sufficient to support a finding of proximate cause if the evidence and inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence indicate that the negligence played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligence. The mere possibility of such causation is not enough, and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or even if the probabilities are evenly balanced, a defendant is entitled to a judgment.

Crowe v. Shaw, 2000 ME 136,

that "A consequence of negligence is reasonably foreseeable if the

negligence has created a risk which might reasonably be expected to result

in the injury or damage at issue, even if the exact nature of the injury need

3 not, itself, be foreseeable." Merriam v. Wanger, 2000 ME 159,

778.

Defendants cite to Addy v. Jenkins in support of their Motion for

Summary Judgment. Addy v. Jenkins, 2009 ME 46, 969 A.2d 935. The facts

of Addy v. Jenkins are that a subcontractor working on the roof of a house

fell from incomplete scaffolding erected by the contractor. Id. at

scaffolding was missing some railings, platforms and ladders and was not

properly attached to the building. Id. at

fall. Id. at

Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment because without any

evidence of how the subcontractor fell, the subcontractor could not make a

prima fade showing of proximate cause. Id. at

The current case is distinguishable from Addy v. Jenkins. In this case, Mrs.

Giroux witnessed Mr. Giroux get caught in door and stumble, whereas in Addy v.

Jenkins, there were no witnesses other than the injured individual who could not

remember what had happened. According to her deposition, Mrs. Giroux saw

Mr. Giroux go out the door. Supp. S.M.F.

would not open very far and watched her husband become stuck in the blocked

door. Add. S.M.F.

that Mr. Giroux struggled to free himself by forcing himself through the blocked

door. Add. S.M.F.

attempts to squeeze through the opening between the door and the doorframe,

Mrs. Giroux heard a bang. Add. S.M.F.

was "looking at the door when he fell,'' but that she didn't see the moment of the

fall itself because "it happened so fast there was no way." Add. S.M.F.

4 Giroux testified that she witnessed Mr. Giroux's fall; she saw him get caught :in

the door and she heard the fall immediately thereafter. Where the subcontractor

had to speculate as to what occurred in Addy v. Jenkins, in this case, the testimony

of Mrs. Giroux is evidence in support of Pla:intiff' s claim that raises a genuine

issue of material fact concerning the cause of Mr. Giroux's injury.

IV. Conclusion

The entry will be: The Court denies Defendant's Motion for Summary

DATE SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICE