Crawford v. Downey

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-04-123 STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, ss. ROBERT R. CRAWFORD and JUDITH CRAWFORD, Plaintiffs v. PETER W. DOWNEY, Defendant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A ' OPINION: ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - & ENTERED SUPERIOR C O U R T 1 r Xi' 2 2 2005 P E N O B S C O T COUNTY Pending before this Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on May 12, 2005. A party is entitled to summary judgment when the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a-matter of law. , M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Darlings v. Ford Motor Co,, 2003 ME 2 1 , 9 14,817 A.2d 877, 879. T o survive a motion for a summary judgment, the opposing party must produce evidence that, if produced at trial, would be sufficient to resist a motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 1997 ME 99, 9 8 , 6 9 4 A.2d 924,926. "'A fact is material when it has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit.'" Prescott v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 ME 250, J 5 , 7 2 1 A.2d 169, 172. Essentially the Court determines whether there is a genuine issue of material fact by comparing the parties' statement of material facts and corresponding record references. Corey v. Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, 1999 M E 196,J 8 , 7 4 2 A.2d 933,938. The court will view the I evidence in light most favorable to the non-moving party. E.g., Steeves v. Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., 1998 ME 210, g11,718 A.2d 186. Plaintiffs deny or qualify several of the material facts put forth by the moving party including that the Defendant "did not conduct a close visual inspection or inspect the stairs from beneath the stairway" (Opp. S.M.F. 9 9); and that6'[i]t is unknown whether Crawford lost his balance and came down on the tread causing it to crack or whether the tread cracked under the weight of Mr. Crawford causing him to lose his balance and fall." (Opp. S.M.F. 9 13). Essentially, Defendant argues that he did not breach a duty to invitee Crawford, while Plaintiffs argue the opposite. Existence of duty of care issues are questions of law, while breach of duty issues are generally questions of fact. Cf.Radley v. Fish, 2004 ME 8 7 , y 6; Mastriano v. Blyer, 2001 ME 134, 99 1 1-12,779 A.2d 951,954. In this case, the breach of duty issue is most certainly a "material" fact that is in dispute, because it has the potential to change the outcome of the case under-the governing law. See Steinke v. Sungard Fin. Sys. Inc., 121 F.3d 763,768 (1" Cir. 1997). An issue is genuine "when sufficient evidence requires a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the truth at trial." MP Assocs. v. Liberty, 2001 ME 22,912,771 A.2d 1040, 1044. In looking at the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Accordingly, the entry shall be: The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Clerk may incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference. Dated: @z ,2005 ~$tice, Maine Superior Court MAINE J U D I C I A L INFORMATION SYSTEM k s m ith mj x x i 0 1 3 PENOBSCOT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PAGE A - ATTORNEY BY CASE VIEW ROBERT R CRAWFORD E T A L VS. PETER W DOWNEY UTN:AOCSsr - 2 0 0 4 - 0 0 6 5 1 5 1 CASE #:BANS[-CV-2004-00123 09/23/2005 ................................................................................ SEL VD 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 3 ATTORNEY:BABER, BRETT D ADDR:304 HANCOCK ST, S U I T E 2E BANGOR ME 04401 F F0R:ROBERT R CRAWFORD F FOR: J U D I T H CRAWFORD REPRESENTATION TYPE DATE PL PL RTND RTND 06/16/2004 06/16/2004 DEF RTND 12/08/2004 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 6 ATTORNEY:MALLONEE, BRUCE ADDR:84 HARLOW ST PO BOX 1401 BANGOR ME 04402-1401 F F0R:PETER W DOWNEY D/B/A MOUNT HOPE ASSOC DEF RTND 06/38/2804 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 ATTORNEY:CUDDY, K E V I N ADDR:470 EVERGREEN WOODS BANGOR ME 04401 F F0R:PETER W DOWNEY D/B/A MOUNT HOPE ASSOC *More E v e n t s f o r l a s t A t t o r n e y * E n t e r O p t i o n : A=Add, B+SeL=Browse, M=More, S e l e c t t h e E X I T KEY f o r p a g e s e l e c t i o n L i n e . R+Sel=RLtnEdit:

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.