Prue v. Alyssa Rose Co., Inc.

Maine Superior

Prue v. Alyssa Rose Co., Inc.

DecidedNovember 22, 2005

DocketCUMcv-04-744

StatusUnpublished

This text of Prue v. Alyssa Rose Co., Inc. (Prue v. Alyssa Rose Co., Inc.) 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

Prue v. Alyssa Rose Co., Inc., (Me. Super. Ct. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE ,'SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-04-74 - ' 'i L.. ,.3b .,. 7. ,ri/pf/ a .-. . i

ARTHUR L. PRUE

Plaintiff -- - - -- -

v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ALYSSA ROSE CO., INC. JUDGMENT and DAVID G. KRUEGER

Defendant

Before the court is Defendant Alyssa Rose Co.'s and David Krueger's

("Defendants") motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Arthur Prue

("Plaintiff") on his complaint.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

In March, 2002 Defendants installed a new boiler at the home of Beth

Prue, Plaintiff's mother. The system installed by Defendants included a Watts

hot water mixing valve, the function of whch is to regulate the temperature of

hot water leaving the boiler. When tested by Frederick G. Hochgraf, a senior

scientist with NH Materials Laboratory, Inc., in February, 2004, this mixing value

did not function properly.

In October, 2003, Plaintiff soaked his feet in a container of hot water

drawn from the kitchen faucet in his mother's house. Plaintiff was unable to

assess the temperature of the water in the footbath with either h s thumbs or feet

due to bilateral neuropathy, caused by diabetes. As a result of soalung h s feet in

hot water from the lutchen faucet in his mother's house, Plaintiff sustained blistering and significant burns on both of his feet. Plaintiff claims that

Defendants are liable in negligence for installing a faulty mixing valve and for

failing to repair or replace the mixing valve upon notice of the problem from

Plaintiff's mother. - -- . - - - -

- STANDARD OFREVIEW - - -

To survive a defendant's motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must

establish a prima facie case for each element of the cause of action alleged in the

complaint. Mastriano v. Blyer, 2001 VIE 134, ¶ 11; 779 A.2d 951, 954. A prima facie

case of negligence requires a plaintiff to establish a duty owed by defendant to

plaintiff, breach of that duty, and an injury to the plaintiff that is proximately

caused by the breach of duty. Id.

The existence of a duty is a question of law. Id. A duty is an obligation, to

w h c h the law will gtve recognition and effect, to conform to a particular manner

of conduct toward another. Id. at ql 12. Duty is often framed in terms of one's

obligation to conduct oneself or one's business in ways that do not cause injury

to others. See id.

However, the questions of breach of duty and whether a defendant's acts

or omissions were the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries are generally

questions of fact, and a judgment as a matter of law is improper if any reasonable

view of the evidence could sustain a finding of proximate cause. Grover v. Boise

Cascade Corp., 2003 ME 45, ¶ 11; 819 A.2d 322, 324 (quoting Houde v. Millett, 2001

ME 183,q 11; 787 A.2d 757,759).

There is no dispute in this case that Plaintiff has suffered injuries. Thus,

the questions on summary judgment concern (1) whether and what duty Defendants owe to Plaintiff and (2) whether Plaintiff has created a disputed issue

of material fact concerning Defendants' actions and their role in h s injuries.

DISCUSSION

I. Duty - ~~ .-- - -

Plaintiff claims that Defendants owe h m a duty of care, as a t h r d person

using his mother's facilities, to conduct the installation and maintenance of h s

mother's boiler system with reasonable care, such that third parties including

hmself do not get scalded by excessively hot water.

Defendants claim that, with respect to the duty owed, they are entitled to

summary judgment in their favor on two grounds. First, Defendants state that

none of Plaintiff's experts are prepared to testify that Defendants improperly

installed the mixing valve in Mrs. Prue's boiler system. In effect, Defendants'

argument is that their duty was limited to installing the component parts of Mrs.

Prue's boiler system correctly, and that absent any material question of fact about

this, they are entitled to summary judgment. As a matter of law, however,

Defendants have a duty not only to mechanically put the component parts of the

boiler system into place correctly, but also a duty to conduct a reasonable test of

the system once installed.

Second, Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment because

Plaintiff does not have a contractual relationship with Defendants, and therefore

as a matter of law no duty flows from Defendants to Plaintiff. However, the

general framework of duty stated in Mastriano, that one has a duty to conduct

oneself and one's business in a manner that does not cause injury to others,

implies a duty not only to those who employ one's services, but also to those t h r d parties who reasonably foreseeably will be affected by those services.' 2001

ME 134 at 9 11. Defendants' argument that the law cuts off liability at the level

of contractual privity does not reflect the modern understanding of duty. See id.

11. Breach of Duty and Causation -- - s (t)irrfaihg to test t h c P f ~ t r f f - a - l k g e h t - D e f e n d a r r tweren~giigent -

temperature of the hot water coming out of Mrs. Prue's faucets at the time of the

original installation and (2) in not responding to Plaintiff's and Mrs. Prue's

requests to fix the hot water problem at her house. Defendants claim, however,

that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of creating a disputed issue of fact

with respect to either of these allegations of breach.

Regarding Plaintiff's first allegation, Defendant Krueger asserts that

Plaintiffs point to no testimony that creates a disputed issue of material fact

about whether he tested the temperature of the water coming out of Mrs. Prue's

faucets after he had completed the installation. It is true that neither Mrs. Prue

nor Plaintiff directly assert that Mr. Krueger didn't check the water temperature.

However, Mrs. Prue states that within a day or so after Defendants had installed

a new boiler in her home, she noticed that that water was uncomfortably hot.

Deposition of Beth Prue, p. 34. A reasonable fact finder could infer, based on h s

testimony, that there was a problem with the boiler system from the time that it

was installed, and that Defendants negligently failed to detect it at the time of

installation.

Defendants also argue in a brief supplementing their motion for summary judgment, that this is a case of nonfeasance. However, Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants failed to detect a mixing valve problem on the system they installed and failed to correct the hot water problem after they had been alerted to it do not allege nonfeasance, as the concept is described in Mastriano or in Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. See 2001 ME 134 at ql 17; 1999 ME 144, ql 14. Here, prior to Defendants' alleged failures, Defendants had undertaken to install and service Plaintiff's mother's boiler system. Thus, this is a standard negligence claim alleging misfeasance, not nonfeasance, and no special relationship between the parties must be adduced by Plaintiff. With regard to the second assertion, Mrs. Prue states that, in the summer

of 2002, Defendant Krueger came to her house in response to a call she had made

about an oil leak. Mrs. Prue recalls indicating to Mr. Krueger after he had

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