Howe v. Stubbs

570 A.2d 1203, 1990 Me. LEXIS 62
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 26, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 570 A.2d 1203 (Howe v. Stubbs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Howe v. Stubbs, 570 A.2d 1203, 1990 Me. LEXIS 62 (Me. 1990).

Opinion

ROBERTS, Justice.

The plaintiff, Deborah Howe, appeals from a grant of summary judgment (Ken-nebec County, Brody J) to defendants Kennebec Wine and Cheese Co. and Robert and Sharon Stubbs in an action for their negligent failure to protect Howe, a customer at Kennebec Wine and Cheese, from a vehicle that crashed into the store and for their failure to warn her of the risk of injury from such accidents. We affirm.

Howe was seriously injured in July 1981 in Hallowell while she stood just inside the entrance to a building owned by the Stubbs, part of which was leased by Kenne-bec Wine and Cheese. A motorist’s brakes failed on a hill opposite the store. The vehicle came down the hill, across the street and crashed into the granite steps and the foyer where Howe was standing. Three similar accidents had occurred over the last twenty-five years at this location.

Whether the defendants had a duty to warn Howe of the possibility of such an accident or to provide barriers to protect her is a matter of law. See Joy v. Eastern Maine Medical Center, 529 A.2d 1364, 1365 (Me.1987). Duty has been defined as “an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular manner of conduct toward another.” Prosser and Keaton on Torts § 53, at 356 (5th ed. 1984). We recognize the general duty of a business proprietor to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to business invitees. Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 314A(3) (1965). In certain circumstances that duty may extend to warning of or protection from a danger that originates from third persons outside the business premises. Id. Section 344. We conclude, however, that the circumstances in the present case did not impose on these defendants a duty either to *1204 warn of or to protect from the errant vehicle that injured Howe.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

Related

Oswald v. Costco
Idaho Supreme Court, 2020
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bell
30 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Kansas, 2014)
Rodriguez ex rel. Trujillo v. Del Sol Shopping Center Associates, L.P.
2013 NMCA 020 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2013)
Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Ctr. Assoc., L.P.
2013 NMCA 20 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2012)
Gniadek v. Camp Sunshine at Sebago Lake, Inc.
2011 ME 11 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2011)
Marshall v. Burger King Corp.
856 N.E.2d 1048 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2006)
Marshall v. Burger King
Illinois Supreme Court, 2006
Weaver v. Blake
Maine Superior, 2004
Stow v. Peterson
204 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Maine, 2002)
Stanton v. Univ. of Maine
Maine Superior, 2000
Jefferson v. Qwik Korner Market, Inc.
28 Cal. App. 4th 990 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
Fawley v. Martin's Supermarkets, Inc.
618 N.E.2d 10 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1993)
Hughes v. Beta Upsilon Building Ass'n
619 A.2d 525 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1993)
Morrill v. Morrill
616 A.2d 1272 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1992)
Cameron v. Pepin
610 A.2d 279 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1992)
Quadrino v. Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co.
588 A.2d 303 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1991)
Fish v. Paul
574 A.2d 1365 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
570 A.2d 1203, 1990 Me. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howe-v-stubbs-me-1990.