Steinert v. Lafrance

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 27, 2015
DocketCUMcv-12-361
StatusUnpublished

This text of Steinert v. Lafrance (Steinert v. Lafrance) 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
Steinert v. Lafrance, (Me. Super. Ct. 2015).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE . : , -.~.- 0,\i\v_. , ·-r"' SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. _: · "~ CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-12-361

DENNIS C. STEINERT and THE STEINERT COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiffs ORDER v.

DEBORAH A. LAFRANCE,

Defendant

Before the court is Defendant Deborah LaFrance's Motion for Summary Judgment

pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on Plaintiff The Steinert Company, Inc.'s

negligence claim following a motor-vehicle accident involving Dennis Steinert and Ms.

LaFrance. Plaintiffs Mr. Steinert and The Steinert Company, Inc. have opposed Ms. LaFrance's

Motion. The court held a hearing on this matter on January 8, 2014. After reviewing the parties'

memoranda and statements of material facts, the summary judgment record, and hearing oral

arguments on the Motion, the court has determined that Ms. LaFrance's Motion shall be granted.

In Flynn Canst. Co., Inc. v. Poulin, a negligence action also involving a motor-vehicle

accident and a company employee, the Law Court held that the company could not recover for

the cost of a replacement employee for the injured employee. 570 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Me. 1990).

The Law Court held that if the company recovered, it would constitute double liability for the

defendant, as the injured employee had sought and received damages for loss of earning capacity

from the defendant. Id. Similarly, in this action, Mr. Steinert is also seeking damages from Ms.

LaFrance for lost wages and impaired earning capacity and The Steinert Company is seeking

damages for financial losses. Lastly, the court notes that The Steinert Company has failed to show that the alleged

damages to The Steinert Company were foreseeable to Ms. LaFrance.

Accordingly, this court ORDERS that Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Count II of

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to

Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).

Dated:

2 DENNIS C STEINERT VS DEBORAH A LAFRANCE UTN:AOCSsr -2012-0083432 CASE #:PORSC-CV-2012-00361

01 0000003163 TWO F

02 0000003182 W~EL~C~H~~M~I~C~H~A~E~L~---------------------------------------- 186 LISBON ST PO BOX 3065 LEWISTON ME 04243-3065 F ~D=E~NN~IS~C~S~T~E~I~N~E~R~T~-------------------- ~P=L________~R~T~N~D~~0~8~/~2~7~/2~0~12

03 0000009296 ~M=IL=L=E~R~~J~A~C~K~D---------------------------------------- 42 MARKET ST SUITE 2 PO BOX 17573 PORTLAND ME 04112-7573 F ~D~E~BO~RAH~~A~L~A~F~RAN~~C~E~------------------- ~D=E~F--------~R~T=N=D--~0~9~/~2~0~/2_0~12

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

Related

Flynn Construction Co. v. Poulin
570 A.2d 1200 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Steinert v. Lafrance, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinert-v-lafrance-mesuperct-2015.