Murdock V. Castigliola

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SLPFJ<...;OR COl,RT CJV'lL c\CTlON DOCK..ET NO. CV -13-534 Sl Xi F. OF MAl\L CU\i 1lFRL\"!D, os ARl"Hl_TR \!LRDOCK, Plaintitr ORDER Al\'UFLO CA5TJULIOLA Ill, et al Defendants Before !he court are motions fur 'urrutmry j11dgment fikd by defendants Martin Thorne and the Marne Department of Public Safely Thorne and tl1c Department ofPuhlic SaJcty (OPS) are two of the J(mr dcti:ndants who have heen sued in tlus adi on by plaintiJT Arthur Murdock_ :\1urdock alleges in count I of the coruplaint that defendant Angelo Castighola is hahle as the dri\et of a vehidc that collided v,.iil1 \lurdock's vehicle em Skyway Drive in Portl:md on January 26, 2010_ At the time of the accident Murdock Wa.> a Lieutenant in the State Police drivmg a state police cruiser In coLint ll of' the con1plaint alleged neghgence m 'ignalin~ Murdo~k ~lieges that defendant Thorne is liable based on his that 'vlurdock could m>lke a left turn in front of Thorne's vehicle bcfme the colhsion. ln count Ill of the complaint Murdock makes an under-insured motorist claim agamst l:WS, alleging that tile liahi!ity of Castigliola and Thome is likely lU exceed their coverage limits and that DPS. wl1ich seJt:insure> it' employees, i-; reqUired to provi<.lc lllldcr-insurcd rnotonst coverag~ as part of its :,elf-insurance. l he motion' before the court uddrc.\' only counts ll ~mlll! of the complaint.' Summary Judgment Summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine fact and the movant 1.< entitled to jud~ment as a maner of law di~putc as lo any material In eon•idering a motwn for summary judgment, the court is required to consider only the portion; of the record rel'e1red to and the material l'ucts SCI l(>rth in the pa1ties' Rule 56(h) stalemcnt'. E.g .. Johnson v_ i\lc:"-JciL 20(12 ME 99 11 8, 800 A 2d 702_ The facb must be considered in the light mo~t favorable to the non-movmg party. l_d. Thus, for pu!Jloses of summary judgme11t, any factual di,putes mu.>t be re,olvcd against the mo,·ant. 1\'e\'eJthclc>S, when the f~cb otTerecl by a pany in opposition to summary judgment w·ould not, if oftered at tnal, be .1ul!icient to withstand a motion for judgment "' a matter of law, summary judgment should be gnmted_ Rodrigue v. Rodrigu~, 1997 MI: 99 ~ 8, 694 A.2d 92-1. I. !\-10 ri0:'\1 I' OR SLMJ\.L\R Y JLlDOMEl\T R Y OEFLl\OA"J I 'J HOT<NE (}ndis~_d Fact~ )_The following b~ts arc undisputed. See Thorne Slvfi' dated September 24,2014 ~~ 2- 10 (adnutled): On January 26, 2(\10 Lt \'iurdock was driving west on Skyway Dnve_ At the location where the accident ucGurrcd, Skyway Dn\'C has two westbound lane.< and two eastbound lane,_ ' IJcfendant Cas11gl ida ha> >ince filed a oeparate >Ummary j udgmcnt motion, but !h"l motion ha.1 not been fL~Iy briefed. 2 LL \knL'c~ \'"-' in he ,.,Libvt.nd lane.\ 'nlo ina~r v.e·,:bcur,c! lm1c, ;b~ entran~e o~· 1r.l~ndin~ the Sl.liC Pohce lo make a left turn aero's the two IJarrac·~-;. llis l1ghts and si:·en were not ach\':<led. Coming ill the Dthcr directi•lrl 111 the inner eastbound land \\·as Thome, \Vho saw that L<afflt ahead of him was stopping. flwme velucl~, mad~ t~e eye conLact with MurCock and stopped his leaving enough space ii1r :>lurclock to make a len lum in iron! Df him_ Thorne !hen \vctved Murdock acros1 his lane oftra\'el. W1th Thorne smppeJ in the inner eastbou~d lane, Murdock inched forward to check fCtr onmming traffic in the outer eastbound lane, .<,aw no velncles, and proceeded across the outside lane. llowe\er, Ca,tigliola's ,ehicle was approaching mthe outer ~astbound lane and collided with Murdock·., \ehicle_ 2.ln r~'ponse lo Thorne·-, SMJ<, Mutdock 'ubmits the followmg: additional facts, "·hich the CDUt1 accepts for purpose_, r>f summary jt:dgment: Thome·, \'elliclc obstructed Murdock's ability to have a good view of the outer ca.<tbound lane. Plaintiff<> SAMF dated October 15. 2014 ~- 2 llcfore waving Murdock on, 'I home gestured with his finger lo Murdock to commumcat( thot Murdock should wait a mcnnent bcfnre initiating a left tum, and Thorne then checked his side ;iev.r mirror to ascertain whether the outer ea,lbound l'lne was clear. Plaintiff.l October 15,2014 SAMF ~~ 3-4. Consllued in the light mCtst fa,orablc to Murdock, '!home intcn<fed to communicate to Murdock that il was safe Lo execute a left tum across both lane<_ Platmifrs October 15. 2014 SAI\-fF~' 6. Murdock contends that whenlhome waved him on. he ·'immediately·· hegan lo execute a left tum, Plaintiffs Odober 15, 2014 SAMF ~ 7, but the record docs nCtt suppot1 that assertion_ 3 -·i nchL·d 1 :.>nvord" ~u .<ee if ~nyonc "as coming_ M•Jl dock Dcp ~5- 86. Accord, M mdock Dcp. ! 6, IS. It is undisputed that ~pproach'ng wh~n 1\furdGck c-cgan his n1rn, Thome saw th~ Caotig;lio!a vchJd; 1ll the outer ca.,Lhound lacw and sounded his horn m a futile allcmpt to warn .\lurd('Ck. 1'laint1lr s Octob~r 15, 20 14 S •\ VIP ~~ S-9 _' 3. Although Murdock's Sl\fF 'tatemcnt ofmmerial Jacts, Sp~cdice.lly, th~ qualili~' and dcmcs JX:Iragrapb 14-16 of Thome's courllinds thattho'e paragraph.; are und11puted: Murdock unequivocally tcsti!ied at his deposition that once he rJmcd m front oi'Thornc, he -,(Cipped anJ inched torward to whcr~ he could ''cmd then I pulled out."' lie funhn te,tified !hat he did that h~cause s~~ the outer eastbound lane he knew he could not rdy on someone who WJS lcllmg him turn kl't ln front ot' them ami that he haJ tu make his ov.n detenmnalion of whether a cited in ]'horne SMI· Y l~nc was clear before he could eros.< that lane. 'vlurdock Ocp. 81i-87. 14-lli_ The Law Court has not mlcd on the lssue of whether a driver who signals to =other dri,er that the lJttcr can makt results. J'wo Maine ~!eli turn can be found ncghgent if a colh>ion \Vith a third vehicle Sup~rior Court Jecioions have eoncluJed that wh1le the sign.ahng driver has ~fway. the signaling driver ha.< not undertaken any duty to assure that it is y1elded his own nght 'M<ndock >uggests that when Thome saw the CtstlglJO!a '~hicle Thllme saw that he was "nli'\"ken'" in ,;gnal1ng to Murdock thJt the la~c v,as clear. l'laJntifC, October 15, 201·1 SAMt ~ 8 To the extent that thts 1ugge<ts that I horne acknowledged any mi,lake on hi, par', ~okno\\ ledgmem such 4 thcr~ i< no support on the recmd for any all d~ar [0 proceed Ro/duc '·' Kc·nnebec) (l\-Jard~n, il<i_'i\','Of!J. NJer datd lui;· 18, '}CoOl in (_'\' -OC,~-13 (Supelior u_ 1.), reportc',l "'- 2nn1 \I·L 1712679; !J!O''''" ,. 1'1ogres.\n:e fnwrance Co, orcicr da•.ed April 13, 2000 ;n CV -99-38 (Superior Ct. Anlim>coggin) (Cok, J.), 1eponed at 2000 \VL 'l3ti7292~. Thcr~ EO Fl/inJilon, 70 dc~ision a >pht ol' authority m other jul'isdictums on this issue. See, e.g., Gilmn ,-_ C~l. Rptr .1d 893, 900 n li (Col. App. 2008)_ appears to hll\-e followed the ~ew Anoth~r Mmne Superior Court Hamp,hire Supreme Coun in concluding that a signaling driver can be liabk 11 the signaling dri\er knows or should know that circumstances ncate ~foreseeable ri-,k of h~rm to third p~nies. January 9, 1997 m CV-96·S6 (Superior Ct. Androscoggin) sp~cial Freche/le v. Cobb, order dated (Delah~nty. J.), reported~~ 1997 Me Super. LEXIS 9, citing WJI/wms v. 0 '!Jnen, Gli9 A .J.d S l 0, 811 (l\'. II. 19'!5 ). \lurdock argue.< that spccml clrcumsllinccs c>.ist here based on his a."ertion that 1lwmc's vehicle obotructed Mtlrdock's view of the ouLer eastbound l;jne. Thorne disagrees that the special circumstlmces rule .<hould be aJopted in :\lainc and also disagree<, that there any specil!J cll\:umstances in tin~ case_ Ultimatdy the court Joes not nccJ to decide whether New Hampshire's special circumstances rule should be adoptcJ in Maine and whether this \Vould result in a of l'act becaus~ the undis~utcd disput~d i."ue recmd estabh>he.< that Murdock did not rely on Thome's signaL Murdock instead tcqi fied that after he mrned in ii-ont of 1 horne· s \'ehicle, he inched f(lrward to sec if there was any traffic in the next lane, saw none, and then pro~eeded. Murdock Dep. 16, 18. 86-87_ ().And the reflSon that you stopped and inched !Or'Ward io; because you know you ~an't rely on someone who's ]dling yDn turn lcfl in ti-onL of them, correct~ _\. Thu'o ''-'"'"L Q. You have' to mok y,,~r owrt Jetenn:nauon ofwhelher or aot a lane lS clear lxfUJe you car, ClOSS !hat lane. Tme~ A. Jhat'o true. Murdock Dcp 87. In order to recover against Thorne, Murdock \\·ould have lo show nut only thai Thorne breached a duty of care hut also that '!home's conduct was a legal or proximate cause of the accident CJ'Olh' v Shmt·, 2000 Y!L 136.-1 ~-10, 755 A.2d 509. Based nn Murdock's deposition tcsti mony, l\ !urdock ca1mot make that showing. Rcgm dless of \\· hethcr Thome owcJ any duty to Mmdock and if so. whether Thome was negligent, Thorne i.< entitled to summary JUdgment due to the absence of any factual d!Spll\e as to causation. JI_ 'YIO'llOJ\' FOR SU\11\IAR Y JLTDGJ\1LNT RY DLFE\!DAI\T DPS The motion by DPS l'or summary the State, JS a sdf-inwrcr, "not sub]~cl pro\isions in the State's insurance judgm~nt is based on two argllments. Th~ first is that to clain" under thG W1insurcd and undenn,ured ~oCe. l'hc second !S that ~lurdock's motori~t claim agairtsl DPS i~ harrell by the immunity and exclu.<ivity pmvisioas ul' the Workers Compensation Act, 39"A l\I.R.S. §§ I 04 and 408. Murdock d1J not dispute any uflhe asscrtwns in the .<latemcnt of matcnal facts submitted by DPS. and the DPS', motion lin surrunary judgment thcrdi1re turns on issues orlaw. On the self-insurance issue, 1t is undisputed that the llPS had not procured any insurance that provided Co\erage for Mnrdock or tor the claim a%erlcd against DPS by Murdock. State departments and employeeo; are self-insured hy a fund adminiskred hy lhe State's 6 Dire~lor of \\.RS § 1731 DPSSMF.-~51-54 '!Le applicabk .<elf-insurance policy·s'.ates that the Risk any sum~ t'1~t Man.l(;Clt'.~nl its msureds ma; be lega:Jy ,,bligatctlto pay because of the Division v.ill pay ~xceptions to wverdgn nnmunity contamed rnth~ lvlainc Tort Claims Act lxhibit t\. to hm AffidaviLJ On the workers ~ompensatoon i;sue. ,, is undisputed lhat th~ State has p'-<id Murdock approximately S )(,'i,OOO m medical and indcnmily workers compcnqation bcnelits. As of Septemb~r 1, 2014 the Stat~ \\·as conu~uing to pay l\lurdoek $ 479.72 per week m workers ])iscu"'ion Murdock's argumenl that he is cnutled to LM coverage frnm DPS is hased on the otraightforward proposition thJt the Insurance Code rcqtnres that all motor vdnde insurance pplicics deli,·ered m Maine mu't include coverage fm persons who a1e legally entitled to rcwver damap,es fi-om opemtoro of uninsured, under-insured. amll1it-~nd-run 2902(1). Tfn, requirement to pro,L,!e CM coverage. argues in,urer the 'ame as it ~pplies Murtlo~k, applic~ to ~ the State a-, self- to any other entity. The problem with Murdock'.< argument is thm 5 M.R.S. prO\'ides that the Stak'< self-in,urancc fund,; "arc not Accordingly, the court vehicles. 24-A M.R.S. ~atmot ~ubject ~ 172~-A(l)(ll) expressly to the prov"ions of Title 24-A." lind thm 24-A M.R.S § 2902(1) i" applicahle here and ~>mnot fmJ 'my other legal basis for the argument tbt DPS is obligated to provide CM coverage to 'vlurdo~k. 1 Under ~he l'o:i Claim> A~t, a i~Gvemmont<•l entJty may be ilahk for "m negligent acts or onm.<ion;"" in t:'le usc of any rr.otor vehicle. 1·1 M.R S. { 8104-A(l)(A). "!"he Tort ClaJtnS Act does not contain any "'ovtsion fOrUM wveragc when other patt1es are negligcr.L 7 \VOrk~r·s c-umpensatwn l'enct't' bars !tis dJim against DPS under the immunity and exclusivity p1ovision.1 of the Workers Compensatnm Act. The cnll)· shall he: The motwn.< for summa!) judgment flied by defendants Martin Thorne and Maine Departmem of PublLc ':.ervice Jf~ granted and the complaint i.< dismissed as again't thos~ dckndJnts The case continue.< as agamst dcfcnd:ltlt> Caqigliola and Patrons OxforJ Insurance Co. The clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the Jocket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a)_ Dakd: January .,22..2015 ---=----"~ Thoma~ D. Warren Justice. Supcnor Court RECBVED CLERK OF COURTS cumbe<land County 205 Nowbuoy Street, Ground Floor Porii<Ind, lviE 0~ 1 01 (\LiZABETH t;ERMA:'{I ESQ GER.'!AN1 MARTF.)11JCC1 & liiLL 4J DF.F.RTNG STREET PORTLAND ~E 04101 ~~J"-~'~' f'\1\o,.Qf { )Jy,,,:, 1\oco<) CLERK OF COURTS Currtlerlard Count)' 205 Newhuoy Street, Ground Floor Portland. ME 041 01 TliDMIIS KNO'o"'L TON MG OFFl Cl': OF THE AT'IOR~EY GENERAL 6 STATE HOl:SE STATIO)! AUG!I~IA ME 0433')-0006 Th'\ecd aN,; A'b'"ey {S"-->. o~ fA<:~) t ! c s """'<1:" ooo~ :"lto~~ t-OG:<.O i"""$'"""' " c 0-.>"""" 0 0 ;;>-P-r-':>1 > "'"'"'"" co 0 0 ,, H c ,, c 0 0 ~H 0 > 0 M "l00"' 0 z "' "' '"' ~ """'::.:: ~ ~ ~00"0 co ~c" :,: , z on!;; n c-30-.< :i2-"'"" ~:>:~---< ~>-<ct:; §0 c ~· '~ ~og;g;; >-!"';;<:"' &:0"'""' co ~ oc >co c 0 0.:"''",_ Oj0 0 0 0 "' cc co 0 0~ 0 0 c c 0 0 0 w 0 ~ ) "" ~ ,. o' ]J d' 0 0 0 " ""-., <l 0 & - co· "() r ) + :j:1 ' 7 j:: 0 0 " 0 " ~ u , " + ~ y if , • 0 '{ ;;;s f , > ~ 0 H 0 ~ '--' ~ • ' £

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.