Sanborn v. Stevens
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-09-192 STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. 'f. ... MARK C. SANBORN and AMY E. SANBORN, Plaintiffs ORDER v. CALEB STEVENS and CATHY NADEAU, Defendants The plaintiffs are the owners of a four-unit apartment building that was destroyed by a March 17, 2009 fire, which started in the apartment leased and occupied by the defendants and their family. The plaintiffs have brought a two-count complaint, based on negligence and breach of lease, against Mr. Stevens and Ms. Nadeau. Ms. Nadeau, who is separately represented by counsel, has filed a motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, which is contained in Count 1. The motion has been briefed. Oral argument is not necessary given the clarity of the written arguments. There is no evidence that either Mr. Stevens or Ms. Nadeau started the fire. There is evidence to suggest that the fire may have been caused by the carelessness of Ms. Nadeau's then seven-year-old son. Maine has adopted the principles set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts §316. See Merchant v. Mansir, 572 A.2d 493 (Me. 1990) involving an injury caused by a bicycle with defective brakes. These principles were affirmed in the equally succinct opinion of Bedard v. Bateman, 665 A.2d 214 (Me. 1995) involving a jet ski accident. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Nadeau's child had a propensity to play with matches nor is there evidence that Ms. Nadeau knew or should have known of the necessity and opportunity for exercising control over her son. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §316. The entry is: Judgment for only the defendant Cathy Nadeau on only Count I of the complaint. Dated: October 22, 2010 Paul A. Fritzsche Justice, Superior Court ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: JEFFREY EDWARDS PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS & HALEY PO BOX 9546 PORTLAND ME 04112-9546 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT CATHY NADEAU: ROBERT HOY HOY & MAIN PO BOX 1569 GRAY ME 04039 DEFENDANT CALEB STEVENS PRO SE: CALEB STEVENS PO BOX 373 SPRINGVALE ME 04083 2
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.
