Griffith v. Houlton Band of Maliseet Tribal Housing Authority

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. HOUSC-CV-15-18 AROOSTOOK, ss CHARLES L. GRJFFITH PLAINTIFF vs. HOULTON BAND of MALISEET TRIBAL HOUS[NG AUTHORITY DEFENDANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SillvfMAR Y JUDGtvfENT On October 28, 2016 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set fo1th below, Defendant's motion is denied. Plaintiff was injured on January 18, 2013 when he slipped on ice and fell to the ground in his drivev,.,ay at 5 Eagle Drive in Houlton. 5 Eagle Drive is a single unit dwelling and part of a complex of chvellings owned and managed by the Defendant, Maliseet Indian Housing Authority. Plaintiff and his wife were residents of 5 Eagle Drive pursuant to a lease agreement. 1 The essence of Defendant's motion is no duty is ovved to the Plaintiff regarding removal of snow or ice from the driveway. Sununary judgment is appropriate when there are no genlline issues of material fact, and the facts entitle a party to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56 (c); In Re Estate gf payis , 2001 ME 106, ~7, 775 A.2d 1127, 1129. The Court should grant a defendant's motion for summary judgment if the evidence favoring the plaintiff is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of lav,'. Curtis v. l orter, 2001 ME 158, ~p, 784 A.2d 18,21. A fact is material when it has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit. Kenny v. Dep't of Human Services, 1999 ME 158, ~3, 740 A.2d 560, 562. An issue is genuine if sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute exists to require a choice between the patties' differing versions of the truth at trial. Id. The existence of a duty and the scope of that duty are questions of law. Alexander v. Mitchel!, 2007 ME 108, ~14. "What" a duty is involves the question whether the 1 Only Pamela Griffith was a signatory to the lease agreement, but for purposes of this action the Plaintiff, as husband to Pamela Griffith, is considered a proper resident and tenant of 5 Eagle Drive. l defendant is under an obligation for the benefit of the pai1icular plaintiff. Id., ~15. If so, the duty is always the same-to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in light of the apparent risk. ld. An owner or occupier of land is under the legal obligation to use ordinary care to ensure that the p1:emises are reasonably safe to invitees in light of the totality of the existing circumstances. Isaacson v. Husson College, 297 A.2d 98., 103 (Me. 1972). The case at hand involves a single family dwelling pursuant to a lease. The lease contains a number of provisions which purpo11edly delegate responsibilities. Relevant sections include: 8. TENANTS OBLIGATIONS AND RULES H.Tenant agrees to maintain grounds and landscaping adjacent to his/her dwelling unit. In the event TENANT fails or neglects to maintain grounds as assigned, TENANT shall pay to MANAGEMENT any and all expenses incmTed by MANAGEMENT in the maintenance and repair of said grounds rendered necessary by such failure .... 9. MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS The I\1ANAGEMENT shall A. Maintain the premises and complex in a decent, safe and sanitmy condition. 10. MAINTENANCE REPAIR Tenant shall use reasonable care to keep the dwelling unit clean and in such condition so as to prevent health or sanitation problems from developing. TENANT shall notify MANAGEMENT promptly of known needs for repairs to his/her dwelling unit, and of unsafe conditions in common areas and grounds of the project that may lead to damage and/or injury, See Lease§ 8,9 and l 0. The lease does not specifically address snow and ice removal from the dwelling driveways. Defendant asserts the provisions set forth above render the tenants responsible. But the Cow1 does not agree that the lease delegates responsibility of snow and ice removal to the tenants. The Defendant had entered a contract with Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (HBMI) to plmv and sand all of the streets and driveways. The Defendant paid for these plowing and sanding services, which were delivered to the Plaintiff and other tenants. DSMF ~8,9; Exhibit A (Contract). In addition, the Defendant directs HBMI to plow and/or sand the driveways in the Village when and ifthere is (a) tlu·ee (3) or more inches of snowfall; (b) freezing rain resulting in ice accumulations; and (c) obvious freeze and thaw events that result in ice accumulation. DSMF ~ l0. Also, as a com1esy to elderly tenants, the Defendant will provide snow removal and sanding of stainvays and v,ralkways when there is one of the above listed triggering events or when requested by the tenant. DSMF ii 11. 2 Defendant asserts that at the time of the Plaintiff's fall there had not been an accumulation of snow or jce or a triggering event to warran1 plowing or sanding. DS"MF 24 25. In suppo11 of these allegations Defendant references the deposition or Fred Tomah. Tomah Depo. 39:24-40: I. Plaintiff denied these statements of material facts. In this case the lease does not relieve the Defendant of a duty of care. The lease does not specify who i.s to maintain the driveway, either plowing or sanding. Although maintenance of grounds is assigned to the tenant in Paragraph 8H, grounds is distinguishable from snow and ice treatment. And if Defendant were to rely on Paragraph 8H to hold the Plaintiff responsible for maintenance of the driveway in the form of removal of accumulations of snow or ice it did not follow its own lease. Defendant undertook the role of plowing aod sanding the roads of the complex and individual drivev,rays, with no additional cJ,arge to the Plaintiff or other tenants. This is inconsistent with the additional terms of Paragraph 8H ,11 hich require Tenant to pay Management all expenses for maintenance. In short, an attempt to bold the Tenant responsible for treatment or maintenance ( f the driveway for accumulation of snow or ice via interpretation of the lease leads to an ambiguous result. 1 The Court therefore finds that the Defendant does owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff regarding the removal of ice and snow from the driveway. That duty is to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk. Alexander, ~15 . The Defendant has set fo11h a cogent argument that its practice of plowing and/or sanding upon a triggering event of 3" or more of snow, freezing rain resulting in accumulation, obvious free and tba,,, events} or when requested by the Tenant js a reasonable practice thal relieves it ofliability. Although the practice may iJ1deed be reasonable, it is still a factual issue best left to the factfinder whether it is a reasonable practice to satisfy the duty it owes to the Plaintiff. In addition, a factual question remains regarding the conditions in general. Defendant relies on the deposition of Fred Tomah for the proposition that there was not an accumulation of snow warranti.ug plowing. Tomah Dep6. 39:24-40: 1 But reviewing that portion of the Tomah deposition iu its entirety, M.r. Tomah stat d " .. . it wasn ' t plowed because there was really no snow that would v,1ammt such a plowing, but certainly thet·e would have beeu for snnding." Tomah Depo. 39:25- 40:2, emphasis added. Tl mav be a factfinder determines that the practice followed by the Defendant was reasonable and sufficient to meet the duty owed lo its Tenant, the Plaintiff in Iight of the apparent risk. But that none the less remains a question for the factfinder to answer. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference purst · lt to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a). · -- (,,Q Januar~ 2017 Justice, Superior Court 3 ~ IS!'.! Attorney Party Representation Type Representation Date ~ IS!'.! Houlton Band Maliseet Tribal Housing Auth - 2 Defendant Houlton Band Maliseet Tribal Housing Auth - 2 Defendant Charles L Griffith - 1 Plaintiff Charles L Griffith - 1 Plaintiff Retained Retained Retained Retained 01/19/2016 08/28/2015 08/05/2015 08/05/2015 Otfene, Amy ~ IS!'.! Smith. Kaighn ~ IS!'.! Mccue. Carl ~ IS!'.! Van Dyke. David

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.