Baker v. Goodman
| Decision Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2:19-cv-00251-JAW |
| Citation | 442 F.Supp.3d 366 |
| Parties | Terry R. BAKER et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nicholas GOODMAN et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Hunter J. Tzovarras, Pelletier Faircloth & Braccio LLC, Bangor, ME, for Plaintiffs.
John J. Wall, III, Monaghan Leahy, LLP, Portland, ME, for Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Shortly after a pawn shop sold a customer a BB rifle,1 a police officer shot and killed the customer in the parking lot outside the pawn shop. Personal representatives of the estate of the decedent filed suit against the pawn shop, alleging that it was negligent in selling the BB rifle to the decedent and in failing to notify the police that its customer possessed not a firearm but a BB rifle. Concluding that, despite the tragedy here, the pawn shop owed no legal duty to the decedent or his legal representatives under current Maine law, the Court grants the pawn shop's motion to dismiss the complaint.
On February 13, 2019, Terry R. Baker and Shantel L. Baker, acting as personal representatives of the estate of Chance D. Baker (Plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit in state of Maine Superior Court for Cumberland County pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 5 M.R.S. § 4682, and 18-A M.R.S. § 2-804 against Portland Police Sergeant Nicholas Goodman, Lewiston Pawn Shop, Inc. d/b/a Coastal Trading & Pawn (Lewiston Pawn),2 and John Doe. Aff. of John J. Wall, III , Attach. 1, Docket R. (ECF No. 3); Compl. The Plaintiffs alleged that Sergeant Goodman used excessive and deadly force against Chance D. Baker on February 18, 2017, in Portland, Maine and thereby violated his rights under the United States and Maine Constitutions. Compl. ¶ 1. Sergeant Goodman answered the Complaint on June 24, 2019. Answer to Compl. and Affirmative Defenses and Demand for Jury Trial (Nicholas Goodman) (ECF No. 11). The Plaintiffs also alleged that Lewiston Pawn and its employee or manager, John Doe, were negligent under state of Maine common law in selling Mr. Baker a BB rifle when he was noticeably intoxicated and suffering from a mental breakdown. Compl. ¶ 1.
On June 3, 2019, Sergeant Goodman removed this case from state to federal court. Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). On June 20, 2019, Lewiston Pawn filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a request for oral argument. Lewiston Pawn Mot. On July 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss. Pls.' Resp. to Def. Lewiston Pawn Shop, Inc. d/b/a Coastal Trading & Pawn's Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) . On July 25, 2019, Lewiston Pawn replied. Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) (Lewiston Pawn Reply ). On July 26, 2019, the Court granted the motion for oral argument, Order Granting Mot. for Oral Argument/Hr'g (ECF No. 19), and the Court held the oral argument on February 13, 2020. Notice of Hr'g on Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 20); Min. Entry (ECF No. 23).
Terry R. Baker is the maternal grandmother and Shantel L. Baker the mother of Chance D. Baker and they are personal representatives of his estate. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. In February 2017, when the events of this case happened, Mr. Baker was twenty-two years old and a resident of Portland. Id. ¶¶ 1, 4. Lewiston Pawn was a duly licensed business in Portland and an individual named in the Complaint as John Doe, but whose real name was unknown to the Plaintiffs, was acting as an employee or manager of Lewiston Pawn. Id. ¶¶ 6-7.
On February 18, 2017, Mr. Baker was suffering from mental health issues and was drinking alcohol. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. At approximately 11:00 a.m., Mr. Baker walked to Union Station Plaza, a moderate size strip mall in Portland at the intersection of Congress Street and St. John Street. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Mr. Baker went into Lewiston Pawn, a pawn shop in Union Station Plaza. Id. ¶ 13. It was apparent to the employees inside Lewiston Pawn that Mr. Baker was intoxicated based on his movements, the odor of intoxicants, and his speech. Id. ¶ 14. Mr. Baker purchased a BB rifle, a non-lethal weapon, from Lewiston Pawn. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. A BB rifle is smaller than an actual firearm and is made with a distinct wood stock. Id. ¶ 17. A reasonable police officer can tell the difference between a BB rifle and an actual firearm.3 Id. ¶ 18.
After purchasing the BB rifle, Mr. Baker walked out of Lewiston Pawn into Union Station Plaza and was unsteady on his feet. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. Mr. Baker fell onto his back on the sidewalk, several people became concerned due to his condition and possession of a BB rifle, and several people called 911. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. Dispatch received the 911 calls at about 11:11 a.m. Id. ¶ 23. Sergeant Goodman, along with several other Portland police officers, responded to a call from dispatch and arrived at Union Station Plaza at approximately 11:17 a.m. Id. ¶¶ 24, 31, 40. Mr. Baker pumped the BB rifle, put it down, drank from a beer bottle, picked the BB rifle back up, and then assumed a crouching position, holding the BB rifle parallel to the ground below his knees. Id. ¶¶ 55, 59-60, 64-65. At roughly 11:19 a.m., Sergeant Goodman shot Mr. Baker in the head. Id. ¶¶ 66-69. Mr. Baker was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead from Sergeant Goodman's gunshot wound
. Id. ¶ 78.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs set out three counts against Lewiston Pawn and John Doe: (1) Count Five, negligence, (2) Count Six, wrongful death, and (3) Count Seven, wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering. Compl. ¶¶ 94-115. Count Five, the negligence count, alleges that when Lewiston Pawn and John Doe sold Mr. Baker the BB rifle, Mr. Baker was "noticeably intoxicated and suffering from a mental health breakdown" and was "acting and communicating in an incoherent manner, [was] unsteady of his feet, and smelled of intoxicants." Id. ¶¶ 96-97. It further alleges that "[a]nother person inside [Lewiston] Pawn Shop at the time told John Doe, and other employees or management, that Mr. Baker was not in a good mental state and they should not sell the air rifle to Mr. Baker." Id. ¶ 98. It states that at the time when "[Lewiston] Pawn Shop and ‘Joh[n] Doe’ sold Mr. Baker the air rifle[,] it was known or reasonably foreseeable that Mr. Baker would be at reasonable risk of harming himself or being harmed based on his intoxicated or mental health state at the time." Id. ¶ 100.
It alleges that "[Lewiston] Pawn Shop and John Doe made no effort [to prevent] Mr. Baker from leaving the store with the air rifle" and "made no effort and provided no safety tips to Mr. Baker regarding proper use and display of the air rifle in a public place, despite knowing that he was walking out of the store into Union Plaza which is a busy public place." Id. ¶¶ 101-02.
Finally, it claims that, even though Lewiston Pawn and John Doe were aware of the police presence in Union Street Plaza, Lewiston Pawn and John Doe did not contact the Portland Police Department to inform them that Mr. Baker had purchased a BB rifle, not a "real firearm." Id. ¶¶ 103-06.
Counts Six and Seven, the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering claims, allege that Lewiston Pawn's and John Doe's actions directly led to Mr. Baker's death at the hands of the Portland Police Department. Id. ¶¶ 109-15.
In its motion to dismiss, Lewiston Pawn states that the Plaintiffs' Complaint "failed to set forth any allegation that properly forms the basis of any legal duty that Lewiston Pawn owed to the decedent." Lewiston Pawn Mot. at 1. As a matter of law, Lewiston Pawn says, "Lewiston Pawn cannot be legally responsible for consequences attributable to the unforeseeable, intentional act of a third party." Id.
To its motion, Lewiston Pawn attached a memorandum of law.4 Lewiston Pawn's Mem. at 4-17. Lewiston Pawn argues that it was not required to perform any of the acts that the Plaintiffs now claim constitute negligence because "[n]o such duty to perform any of the ... acts exists under Maine law." Id. at 5. Lewiston Pawn writes:
Lewiston Pawn posits that "[u]nder Maine law, a cause of action for negligence has four elements," including "a duty of care owed to the plaintiff." Id. at 8. Lewiston Pawn argues that "if a danger is not foreseeable, then no duty is owed to a potential plaintiff." Id. at 9. Second, Lewiston Pawn asserts, "there is also no general obligation to protect others from the actions of third parties, even where one knows the third party is or could be dangerous." Id. Here, Lewiston Pawn maintains, there is "no way that Lewiston Pawn could have been expected to anticipate that the decedent would be shot by another for carrying a non-lethal BB rifle in broad daylight, a completely legal act." Id. Put differently, Lewiston Pawn rejects the idea that a "duty of care can attach to Lewiston Pawn to protect the decedent against his own poor decisions, or the intentional decision of a police officer." Id.
Lewiston Pawn protests that the Plaintiffs' Complaint attempts "to cobble together the existence of a legal duty by alleging multiple theories against Lewiston Pawn," including that Lewiston Pawn was negligent (1) in its sale of the BB rifle to an intoxicated person who was not in a good mental state, (2) in failing to prevent Mr. Baker from leaving the store and walking into Union Street Plaza, (3) in failing to provide Mr. Baker with safety tips, and (4) in failing to contact the Portland Police Department to inform them that Mr. Baker had just purchased a BB rifle. Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Theriault
...and this Court is not the place to establish a duty entirely detached from the current status of tort law in Maine. See Baker, 442 F.Supp.3d at 380 (“[T]he federal court, as has been repeatedly said, ‘not the place to make new state law.'” (quoting Pinkham v. Liberty Ins. Corp., No. 1:18-cv......