Chapman v. Rideout

Decision Date16 January 1990
Citation568 A.2d 829
PartiesDale CHAPMAN, et al. v. Arthur RIDEOUT.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Andrew Mead, Mitchell & Stearns, Bangor, for plaintiffs.

Jerome B. Goldsmith, Linscott, Slater, Goldsmith & Rair, Bangor, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, HORNBY and COLLINS, JJ.

WATHEN, Justice.

Defendant Arthur Rideout appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Beaulieu, J.) entered in favor of plaintiffs Dale and Kristine Chapman. After a non-jury trial, the court awarded damages for negligent misrepresentation. On appeal, defendant argues that the tort of negligent misrepresentation has never been recognized in Maine and that therefore the trial justice erred in finding for plaintiffs on the issue of liability. We affirm the judgment.

The facts may be briefly summarized as follows: In 1985, defendant acquired a parcel of land in Holden. In 1986, he listed the property with a broker and marked the boundaries by fastening colored flags on trees. Defendant testified that he never had the land surveyed, but relied on a conversation with the previous owner in locating the boundaries of the property. In June of 1986, defendant conveyed the parcel to plaintiffs by warranty deed. Defendant testified that prior to closing he spoke with plaintiffs by telephone and indicated that the property lines were represented by the markers.

After acquiring the property plaintiffs cleared the land and installed a foundation and driveway within the area flagged by defendant. Plaintiffs then learned that defendant's markings were incorrect and that defendant had actually flagged a portion of the adjoining lot. As a result of this discovery, plaintiffs were required to install a more expensive septic system and also have another soil test performed. Additionally, plaintiffs purchased the adjoining lot in order to preserve their investment in the driveway and foundation.

After trial, the Superior Court entered judgment for plaintiffs, specifically finding that defendant's representations respecting the boundary markers constituted a negligent misrepresentation. The court awarded damages for the changes in the septic system and additional expenses relative to soil testing and closing costs. Defendant appeals.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines the tort of negligent misrepresentation as follows:

One who, in the course of his business, profession or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
110 cases
  • Gomes v. University of Maine System, No. CIV.03-123-B-W.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 8 Abril 2005
    ...material fact 33 through 40, statements that concern only the Old Town Police Department reports. See SMF ¶¶ 33-40. In Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829, 830 (Me.1990), the Law Court adopted § 552(1) of the Restatement (Second) Of Torts (1977) as the standard for claims of negligent misrepre......
  • Clavet v. Dean
    • United States
    • Maine Superior Court
    • 8 Enero 2020
    ...the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829, 830 (Me. 1990) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552(1) (1977)). An omission by silence may constitute the supplying of false informa......
  • Savell v. Hayward
    • United States
    • Maine Superior Court
    • 27 Febrero 2015
    ...other party justifiably relies upon it to his pecuniary detriment." Guiggey v. Bombardier, 615 A.2d at 1173 (citing Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829, 830 (Me. 1990)); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552. Whether a party made aPage 18misrepresentation and whether the opposing party ......
  • Knowlton v. Shaw, 1:09–cv–00334–JAW.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 24 Agosto 2011
    ...and to persons the speaker intended to benefit by providing the information; damages are limited to out-of-pocket loss. Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829, 830 (Me.1990); Maine Tort Law § 11.08. Furthermore, contributory negligence on the part of the recipient bars recovery. Maine Tort Law § ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT