Sellars v. Osborne

Maine Superior

Sellars v. Osborne

DecidedAugust 25, 2015

DocketANDcv-14-133

StatusUnpublished

This text of Sellars v. Osborne (Sellars v. Osborne) 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

Sellars v. Osborne, (Me. Super. Ct. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-14-133 '- RECEIVED & F\LEO ANITA SELLARS ' ) . ' '- } { ' -

Plaintiff, ANDROSCOGG\t~ SUPER\0~ COURT v. ) ORDER ) JASON OSBORNE ) ) Defendant. )

Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on

Defendant's Second Affirmative Defense, alleging comparative negligence.

I. Background

Plaintiff Anita Sellars and Defendant Jason Osborne were involved in a motor

vehicle collision on April 22, 2012. (Supp. S.M.F. 91 1.) The collision occurred at the

intersection of Route 9, Plummer Mill Rd., and Swamp Rd. in Durham, Maine. (Opp.

S.M.F. 9191 2, 5.) At the time of the collision, Plaintiff was traveling westbound on Route

9. (Opp. S.M.F.

At the intersection, Plaintiff made a right turn from Route 9 onto Swamp Rd. (Opp.

S.M.F. 91 5.) Plaintiff did not have a stop sign or traffic signal controlling her right tum

onto Swamp Rd. (Supp. S.M.F. 91 6; Opp. S.M.F. 91 6.) At about the same time,

Defendant made a left turn across the westbound lane of Route 9 onto Plummer Mill

Rd. (Supp. S.M.F. 91 8.) The front of Plaintiff's vehicle struck the rear of Defendant's

vehicle. (Opp. S.M.F. 91 9; Add. S.M.F. 91 17.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant on August 19, 2014, alleging

negligence. (Pl.'s Compl. 9191 5-8.) Defendant filed an answer on September 9, 2014,

raising comparative negligence as an affirmative defense. (Def.'s Ans. 2). Plaintiff filed

1 a motion for partial summary judgment regarding the defense of comparative

negligence on May 26, 2015. (Pl.'s M.S.J. 1.)

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate if the parties' statements of material fact and

the cited record indicate 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 ofTransp., 2008

ME 106,

case. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the fact finder must choose between

competing versions of the truth." Dyer, 2008 ME 106,

citation and quotation marks omitted). When deciding a motion for summary

judgment, the court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party. Id.

If a plaintiff moves for summary judgment on an affirmative defense, the

defendant opposing summary judgment must establish a prima facie case for each

element of the affirmative defense in order to avoid summary judgment. Reliance Nat'l

Indemnity v. Knowles Indus. Servs., 2005 ME 29,

by the defendant "need not be persuasive at that stage, but the evidence must be

sufficient to allow a fact-finder to make a factual determination without speculating."

Estate of Smith v. Cumberland County, 2013 ME 13, 9I 19, 60 A.3d 759. The plaintiff is

entitled to a summary judgment if the evidence presented by the defendant in support

of its affirmative defense would, if produced at trial, fail to establish a prima facie case

and entitle the plaintiff to a judgment as a matter of law. Addy v. Jenkins, Inc., 2009 ME

46,

2 III. Discussion

Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment argues that Defendant has failed

to produce evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case for comparative

negligence. (Pl.'s M.S.J. 2.) Under the Maine Comparative Negligence Act, when a

plaintiff suffers damages as a result partly of the plaintiff's own fault and partly of the

defendant's negligence, the damages recoverable from the defendant must be reduced

to the extent as the jury thinks just and equitable with regard to the plaintiff's share of

responsibility for their damages. 14 M.R.S.A. § 156. Thus, to maintain a defense of

comparative negligence, the defendant must produce prima facie evidence that the

plaintiff's own fault was a proximate cause of the underlying harm that gave rise to the

plaintiff's claim. Sealares v. Fleetwood Homes ofPa., Inc., 2005 ME 94,

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff cites to Defendant's

deposition testimony as demonstrating that Defendant has no evidence to support its

comparative negligence defense. (Supp. S.M.F.

testified that he did not know of any actions by Plaintiff that contributed to the collision,

that he did not see Plaintiff's vehicle long enough to determine if Plaintiff was speeding

when the collision occurred, and that he had no personal knowledge that Plaintiff did

anything wrong to cause the collision. Id.

In support of its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment,

Defendant cites Plaintiff's testimony at deposition as prima facie evidence of Plaintiff's

own fault. (Add. S.M.F. CJ[CJ[ 15-18.) At deposition, Plaintiff testified that she was

traveling about 25 miles per hour, "maybe more," as she made her tum at the

intersection. (Opp. S.M.F. CJ[ 7.) Plaintiff also testified that she did not know whether

Defendant's left tum signal was activated prior to the collision, that she assumed

Defendant's vehicle would continue on Route 9, and that she never thought

3 Defendant's vehicle might turn onto another road at the intersection. (Add. S.M.F.

17.) Plaintiff further testified that she had traveled through the intersection of Route 9,

Swamp Rd., and Plummer Mill Rd. thousands of times before. (Add. S.M.F.

Plaintiff testified that she thought the intersection of Route 9, Swamp Rd., and Plummer

Mill Rd. was a dangerous intersection as a result of vehicles turning from Route 9 on to

Swamp Rd. or Plummer Mill Rd. at a high rate of speed. (Add. S.M.F.

Defendant also cites his own testimony in support of his opposition to Plaintiff's

motion for summary judgment. (Add. S.M.F.

intersection of Route 9, Swamp Rd., and Plummer Mill Rd. is a "tough intersection."

(Add. S.M.F.

steepness of the hill Plaintiff was descending make it difficult to see vehicles

approaching the intersection on Route 9. (Add. S.M.F.

looked to his left, to his right, to his left again, and to his right a final time before

proceeding and did not see Plaintiff's vehicle until an instant before the collision. (Add.

S.M.F.

Viewing the evidence produced by both parties in the light most favorable to

Defendant, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff's actions contributed

to the motor vehicle collision. Defendant has produced prima facie evidence in support

of its comparative negligence defense. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for partial

summary judgment regarding Defendant's affirmative defense of comparative

negligence is denied.

IV. Conclusion

The court denies summary judgment on Defendant's Second Affirmative

Defense.

4 Maryiay Kennedy Jpst}fe, ,_.... Superior C.9- ,'

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