Crawford v. Downey

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedSeptember 22, 2005
DocketPENcv-04-123
StatusUnpublished

This text of Crawford v. Downey (Crawford v. Downey) 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
Crawford v. Downey, (Me. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-04-123 A '

ROBERT R. CRAWFORD and 1 JUDITH CRAWFORD, 1 1 Plaintiffs 1 1 OPINION: ORDER ON MOTION v. 1 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -- PETER W. DOWNEY, 1 1 & ENTERED 1 SUPERIOR C O U R T r 1 Defendant 1 Xi' 2 2 2005 P E N O B S C O T COUNTY I Pending before this Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment,

filed on May 12, 2005.

A party is entitled to summary judgment when the record shows that there is no

genuine issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a-matter of law. ,

M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Darlings v. Ford Motor Co,, 2003 ME 2 1 , 9 14,817 A.2d

877, 879. T o survive a motion for a summary judgment, the opposing party must

produce evidence that, if produced at trial, would be sufficient to resist a motion for a

judgment as a matter of law. Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 1997 ME 99, 9 8 , 6 9 4 A.2d 924,926.

"'A fact is material when it has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit.'" Prescott

v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 ME 250, J 5 , 7 2 1 A.2d 169, 172. Essentially the Court

determines whether there is a genuine issue of material fact by comparing the parties'

statement of material facts and corresponding record references. Corey v. Norman,

Hanson & DeTroy, 1999 M E 196,J 8 , 7 4 2 A.2d 933,938. The court will view the evidence in light most favorable to the non-moving party. E.g., Steeves v. Bernstein,

Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 1998 ME 210, g11,718 A.2d 186.

Plaintiffs deny or qualify several of the material facts put forth by the moving

party including that the Defendant "did not conduct a close visual inspection or inspect

the stairs from beneath the stairway" (Opp. S.M.F. 9 9); and that6'[i]t is unknown

whether Crawford lost his balance and came down on the tread causing it to crack or

whether the tread cracked under the weight of Mr. Crawford causing him to lose his

balance and fall." (Opp. S.M.F. 9 13).

Essentially, Defendant argues that he did not breach a duty to invitee Crawford,

while Plaintiffs argue the opposite. Existence of duty of care issues are questions of law,

while breach of duty issues are generally questions of fact. Cf.Radley v. Fish, 2004 ME

8 7 , y 6; Mastriano v. Blyer, 2001 ME 134, 99 1 1-12,779 A.2d 951,954. In this case, the

breach of duty issue is most certainly a "material" fact that is in dispute, because it has

the potential to change the outcome of the case under-the governing law. See Steinke v.

Sungard Fin. Sys. Inc., 121 F.3d 763,768 (1" Cir. 1997). An issue is genuine "when

sufficient evidence requires a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the

truth at trial." MP Assocs. v. Liberty, 2001 ME 22,912,771 A.2d 1040, 1044. In looking

at the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, Defendant's Motion for

Summary Judgment should be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is

denied. Accordingly, the entry shall be: The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Clerk may incorporate this

Decision and Order into the docket by reference.

Dated: @z ,2005 ~$tice, Maine Superior Court 09/23/2005 MAINE J U D I C I A L INFORMATION SYSTEM k s m ith PENOBSCOT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT mj x x i 0 1 3 PAGE A - ATTORNEY BY CASE VIEW ROBERT R CRAWFORD E T A L VS. PETER W DOWNEY UTN:AOCSsr - 2 0 0 4 - 0 0 6 5 1 5 1 CASE #:BANS[-CV-2004-00123 ................................................................................ SEL VD REPRESENTATION TYPE DATE 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 3 ATTORNEY:BABER, BRETT D ADDR:304 HANCOCK ST, S U I T E 2E BANGOR ME 04401 F F0R:ROBERT R CRAWFORD PL RTND 06/16/2004 F FOR: J U D I T H CRAWFORD PL RTND 06/16/2004

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 ATTORNEY:CUDDY, K E V I N ADDR:470 EVERGREEN WOODS BANGOR ME 04401 F F0R:PETER W DOWNEY D/B/A MOUNT HOPE ASSOC DEF RTND 12/08/2004

0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 6 ATTORNEY:MALLONEE, BRUCE ADDR:84 HARLOW ST PO BOX 1401 BANGOR ME 04402-1401 F F0R:PETER W DOWNEY D/B/A MOUNT HOPE ASSOC DEF RTND 06/38/2804

*More E v e n t s f o r l a s t A t t o r n e y * E n t e r O p t i o n : A=Add, B+SeL=Browse, M=More, R+Sel=RLtnEdit:

S e l e c t t h e E X I T KEY f o r p a g e s e l e c t i o n L i n e .

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

Related

Steinke v. Sungard Financial Systems, Inc.
121 F.3d 763 (First Circuit, 1997)
Prescott v. State Tax Assessor
1998 ME 250 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)
Darling's v. Ford Motor Co.
2003 ME 21 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2003)
Steeves v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.C.
1998 ME 210 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)
Mastriano v. Blyer
2001 ME 134 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
MP ASSOCIATES v. Liberty
2001 ME 22 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
Credit Counseling Centers, Inc. v. City of South Portland
2003 ME 2 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2003)
Rodrigue v. Rodrigue
1997 ME 99 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1997)
Dime Savings Bank of Hartford v. Bragaw
4 A.2d 924 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1939)
Alley v. Alley
2004 ME 8 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Crawford v. Downey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-downey-mesuperct-2005.