Fields v. Perry

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 27, 2011
• Docket: YORcv-10-361
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-10-3().1 PAF- '/Of(- tob7/',;;._ot; I ' DEBRA J. FIELDS ) ) Plaintiff ) ) Vs. ) ) WAYNE PERRY and SUSAN ) ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT PERRY ) TO DEFENDANTS BILL HAYDEN AND ) PATRICIA HAYDEN And ) ) BILL HAYDEN AND PATRICIA ) HAYDEN ) ) And ) ) STEVEN NUGENT and TRACY ) NUGENT ) ) Defendants )

After hearing had, and after review of the Statements of Material Facts with Exhibits and Memoranda of Law submitted by the parties, this Court hereby grants summary judgment for the Defendants, Bill Hayden and Patricia Hayden, and against Plaintiff, Debra J. Fields, with regard to Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint for the following reasons:

In order to avoid summary judgment being entered against her, the Plaintiff must establish a prima fa~ie case for each element of her cause of action for negligence against the · Defendants, including: 1) that a legal duty was owed by Defendants to her; 2) that Defendants breached that duty; 3) that the breach of the duty caused the Plaintiff to be injured; and 4) that the Plaintiff sustained injury.

The determination of whether the Haydens owe a duty to Plaintiff is a question of law for the Court to determine: Radley v. Fish, 2004 ME 87, ~ 6, 856 A.2d 1196, 1198-99.

Within Count III of her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Haydens, as landlords of property leased to the Perrys, who owned the dog that allegedly injured her, had the legal right and obligation to exercise sufficient control over the leased premises, including the Perry dog, so as to protect her from being injured by the dog. Since the Plaintiff has not alleged that ¢.e Haydens were either owners or keepers of the Perry dog, she has not asserted liability against them based upon common law strict liability or statutory liability pursuant to 7 M.R.S. §3961.

1 As a general rule, landlords are not liable for dangerous conditions relating to leased premises after the lessee obtains exclusive possession and control absent three specific exceptions, none of which are applicable to the facts of the present case. Nichols v. Marsden, 483 A.2d 341?(Me. 1984). ¥ The Law Court has previously ruled that there is no duty imposed upon a non-occupying landowner (including a lessor) to require lessees or licensees to control their dogs from injuring third persons. Stewart v. Aldrich, 2002 ME 16, 788 A.2d 603; Parrish v. Wright, 2003 ME 90, 828 A.2d 778J f} Aff 14\ I

Accordingly, the Haydens, as owners and landlords of the property leased to the Perrys, owed no duty to supervise or control the Perrys' dog while the Perrys were the exclusive occupiers of the leased premises. This Court hereby grants summary judgment for Defendants Bill Hayden and Patricia Hayden against Plaintiff Debra J. Fields upon Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint.

The Clerk is instructed to incorporate this Order by reference within the docket.

I o.......Jt~.-)._v__._/_u_ Date: __

./

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: PRO SE DEFENDANTS: HARRY B CENTER, II WAYNE PERRY WOODMAN EDMANDS DANYLIK & AUSTIN SUSAN PERRY PO BOX 468 3A SENECA AVENUE BIDDEFORD ME 04005 SANFORD ME 04073

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS PATRICIA & BILL HAYDEN: STEVEN NUGENT PAUL DOUGLASS TRACY NUGENT PAUL S DOUGLASS PA 10 ACADEMY LANE PO BOX 1346 LEBANON ME 04027 LEWISTON ME 04243-1346