P Insurance Company ("State Farm' insured the vehicle. Lucas had been friends

Transcription

1 STATE OF MANE CUWBERLAND, ss. SUPEROR COURT CVL ACTON DOCKET NO: CV Ff:\ ' ' P 1.2 ' 7'-7 #. STEPHANE ROUSSEL v. MARK LUCAS Plainiff Defendan ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DONALD 1. GAP"' LAW LlBRB MAY This maer came before h Cour on Defendan's moion for summary judgmen pursuan o M.R. Civ.? 56(c). Following hearing, he moion is GRANTED. B CKGROUND Plainiff Sephanie Roussel ("Roussel") and Defendan Mark Lucas ("Lucas") reside in Cumberland uny, Maine. On Sepember 22,2000, Roussel borrowed a car from Lucas whle s car was being repaired; Sae Farm was raveling on he Maine Turn ke in Porland. She depared he Turnpike a Exi 8 and hen drove norh on Ri erside Sree. Anoher driver, David ~ebder ("Webber"), was raveling souh kverside Sree a ha ime.' Webber had li wih Webber for abou en years a d found h m o be rusworhy. P nsurance Company ("Sae Farm' insured he vehicle. Lucas had been friends When Roussel arrived a h inersecion of Riverside Sree and Riverside P Cour, Webber urned lef oward 'verside Cour. His car collided wih he 1 Webber, who is allegedly uninsured, is o a pary o his acion.

2 carrying. She also injured her el incurring medical expenses and los wages for he week of work she Roussel alleges ha she was forced o work par-ime when she did reurn o her job as a cashier, as she could no sand for exended periods of ime. On Sepember 20,2006, R Sae Farm for negligence and ssel brough his complain agains Lucas and ligen inflicion of emoional disress. Sae Farm immediaely moved o iss on he basis ha he claim agains i derived from is conrac wih Lucas and ould no be addressed unil Lucas's liabiliy was deermined. This Cour Sae Farm's moion on December 1,2006. Lucas raised ha i fails o sae demonsrae Roussel has no developed a pri defenses o he complain, including can be graned and does no judgmen on he basis ha facie case for negligen enrusmen and ha he negligen inflicion of 1 disress coun fails o sae a claim upon which relief can be graned. Rous el conends ha here are dispued issues of maerial fac regarding he neglig n enrusmen claim. 1. Summarv Tud~men Sandard. Summary judgmen is pro r where here exis no genuine issues of maerial fac such ha he is eniled o judgmen as a maer of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Caly Coy?., 2001 ME 77,, 770 A.2d 653, 655. A genuine sufficien evidence requires a

3 Wrigh, 2003 ME 90, 91 8, 828 A.2~1778, 781. A maerial fac is a fac ha has "he poenial o affec he oucome ol he sui." Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 8, 6,750 A.2d 573,575. "f maerial facs ;.re dispued, he dispue mus be resolved hrough fac-finding." Curis v. f orer, 2001 ME 158, 7,78 A.2d 18/22. When a defendan seeks summary jud en, a "plainiff mus esablish a prima facie case for each elemen of her acion." Champagne v. Mid-Maine Med. Cr., 1998 ME 87, 9, 711 A.2d 82, 8. A his sage, he facs are reviewed "in he ligh mos favorable o he nonm ving pary." Lighfoo v. Sch. Admin. Dis. No. 2. s Summary Tudgm Claim? 2n Warraned on he Negligen Enrusmen "[Tlo survive summary plainiff bears he burden o "incompeen, inexperienced, or reason o know;" he defendan doing so generaed "an "relaional duy on he proximaely caused by" he CV (Me. Super. n lus case, Roussel has driving, which he breached by Lucas breached hs duy o be on [a] negligen enrusmen claim," a facie case ha: a driver was ckless" and he defendan knew i "or had enrused a vehcle o he driver; risk of harm o he plainiff," giving rise o a defendan; and he injuries "were en enrusmen. Yunker v. verson, CUMSC-. Cy., July 1, 1997) (Saufley, J.).2 ha Webber had a duy of care whle wih her vehicle. She furher alleges ha by allowing Webber o drive he 2 The Law Cour has recognized enrusmen as acionable, bu has no concreely se forh he elemens of such a izker decision, also an auomobile enrusmen case, borrowed from TORTS (1965) and a decision of he Arkansas Supreme Cour o se forh he elemens.

4 vehicle, causing her damages. L cas argues ha his does no mee he sandard for a negligen enrusmen acio as lised above. n response o Lucas's summary judgmen moion, Rou sel alleges for he firs ime ha Webber old her a he scene of he acciden hp he had been in a car acciden wih anoher red car wo weeks before heir c lision and saed ha red was hs "unlucky! color." She furher conends ha Lucas was aware of he prior acciden when he loaned Webber his car because h 9 was repairing Webber's car. There is no evidence in he record abou whc( was a faul for he alleged prior acciden. d Also, here is no evidence beyon his asserion ha Lucas was repairing 1 Webber's car or was aware of an oher acciden. n fac, Lucas saes in hs affidavi ha he was unaware hal Webber had any prior accidens or driving violaions a he ime he le Webb r borrow his car. i Anyhing Webber migh h ve said o Roussel a he scene of he acciden would be inadmissible hearsay b ause i does no fall wihin any exempion in M.R. Evid. 801 or excepion in M. J. Evid Addiionally, i has no been demonsraed ha Webber is una ailable per M.R. Evid. 80, so he saemen canno be admied as a saemen agains ineres. Wihou his saemen, here is no evidence properly before hi 1 Cour ha would indicae ha Webber is an unsafe driver or ha Lucas knew r had reason o know ha Webber was "incompeen, inexperienced, or r kless" when he agreed o le Webber borrow his car. The evidence oherwise es ablishes ha Lucas knew Webber for over en years, found him o be hones and b usworhy, and believed ha he was sober Because Webber is no a pary o his ac 801(d)(2). This also would no qualify as hose erms are defined in Rules saemen would be offered for he no be used o oppose summary his is no a saemen by a pary opponen under uerance or presen sense impression as oher 803 excepion applies, and his i assers; herefore, i is hearsay and may

5 and aler when he loaned him he car. Also, he mere allegaion of a prior acciden or uninsured saus does no conclusively demonsrae ha someone is an "incompeen, inexperienced, or reckless" driver. Given his, Roussel has no me her burden o esablish a prima facie claim for negligen enrusmen, and summary judgmen mus be graned on his coun. 3. s Summarv Tudprngm Warraned on he Nezligen - - nflicion of Emoional Disress (Zlaim? As in a ypical negligence acion, a plainiff alleging negligen inflicion of emoional disress ("NED") mus: esablish a prima facie case for each elemen of a negligence claim: duy, breach, causaion, and damages. Curis, 2001 ME 158, q[ 18, 78 A.2d a 25. The emoional disress suffered by he plainiff mus be severe. d. q[ 20,78 A.2d a 26. A.lhough foreseeabiliy of harm is no disposiive of NED claims, he Law Cour has limied he duy o avoid creaing emoional harm by employing a modified foreseeabiliy analysis. d. q[ 19, 78 A.2d a 25. Also, NED can be brough as an independen claim for relief, bu such claims ypically become "subsumed in any award" a plainiff wins in an underlying or claim. d. q[ 19,78 A.2d a 26. Here, Roussel has alleged ha Lucas negligenly infliced emoional disress by lending his car o Webber, as he resuling acciden caused her o lose one of her unborn babies and suffer physical injuries. Lucas couners ha he NED claim mus fail because Roussel canno recover on he underlying or. As noed above, however, NED may be an independen claim and does no depend on recovery for negligen enrusmen for is viabiliy. This Cour will herefore deermine wheher Roussel's claim. qualifies under Curis. Roussel's claim mus fail because she has no demonsraed ha Lucas had a duy no o cause her

6 emoional harm when he loaned Webber his car. Because Roussel's NED claim does no mee he Curis sandard, and Roussel has no conesed Lucas's moion regarding NED, summary judgmen will be graned on his coun. The enry is: DefendanYs moion for summary judgmen on boh couns is GRANTED. Judgm.en will be enered for Defendan Lucas. The clerk shall incorporae his Order ino he docke by reference pursuan o M.R. Civ. P. 79(a). DATE: Jusice, $perior Cour

7 OF COURTS rland Couny. Box 287 ame CLFFORD STRKE ESQ - 00 ALLEN AVENUE PORTLAND ME 0103 CHRSTOPHER DNAN ESQ PO BOX 706 PORTLAND ME 0112