Fish v. Paul
| Decision Date | 31 May 1990 |
| Citation | 574 A.2d 1365 |
| Parties | Gretchen FISH, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Mark Colvin v. John and Claire PAUL, d/b/a Horseshoe Motel, et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
William B. Devoe (orally), Eaton, Peabody, Bradford & Veague, P.A., Bangor, for plaintiff.
Gerald F. Petruccelli (orally), Petruccelli, Cox & Martin, Portland, for defendants.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, HORNBY * and COLLINS, JJ.
Gretchen Fish, individually and as personal representative of the estate of her son, Mark Colvin, appeals the dismissal by the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Beaulieu, J.) of her complaint for failure to state a claim against defendants John and Claire Paul, d/b/a Horseshoe Motel. M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Fish argues that the Pauls are liable for their failure to help Colvin, a guest who became ill at their motel. Because the undisputed facts do not give rise to a duty to act on the part of the Pauls, we affirm the judgment.
The plaintiff alleges the following: On August 13, 1987, Colvin, who was 18 at the time, travelled with two companions, Steven Fahsel and Frederick Wood, from Bangor to Old Orchard Beach to attend a concert. After the concert, the three rented a room in Saco at the Horseshoe Motel, owned by the Pauls. During the night the three drank a substantial quantity of alcohol. The next morning an employee of the motel saw Fahsel and Wood carrying Colvin, who was semiconscious, to a waiting car. After placing Colvin in the rear seat, Fahsel and Wood started back toward Bangor. On I-95 near Etna, the car overheated and stopped. A police officer stopped and called an ambulance for Colvin, but he was pronounced dead on arrival at St. Joseph's Hospital in Bangor. The complaint sought compensatory damages for Colvin's conscious pain and suffering, plaintiff's loss of companionship, pecuniary loss, medical and funeral expenses and punitive damages for actual or implied malice.
The court dismissed all counts against the Pauls on the basis that Maine has not recognized a duty of an innkeeper to aid a guest and, even if such a duty were recognized, the Pauls were entitled to assume that Colvin's friends were attending him. Whether one party owes a duty of care to another is a matter of law. Joy v. Eastern Maine Medical Center, 529 A.2d 1364, 1365 (Me.1987). We have recognized the general duty of a business proprietor to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to business invitees. Howe v. Stubbs, 570 A.2d 1203 (Me.1990). We also recognize that in certain circumstances the relationship between a guest and an innkeeper may give rise to a duty to render aid in case of illness or injury. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 314A(2) (1965).
Comment f to Section 314A, however, provides an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Estate of Wiggins
...by the breach of duty. Id. (quotation omitted). "Whether one party owes a duty of care to another is a matter of law." Fish v. Paul, 574 A.2d 1365, 1366 (Me. 1990). Duty and liability are determined by the existence of actual or constructive knowledge. Milliken v. Lewiston, 580 A.2d 151, 15......
-
Savell v. Hayward
...Hanson & DeTroy, 1999 ME 196, ¶ 10, 742 A.2d 933). Whether a duty exists is an issue of law to be determined by the court. Fish v. Paul, 574 A.2d 1365 (Me. 1990). Proximate cause exists in legal malpractice cases where "evidence and inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence ......
-
Baker v. Goodman
...that addresses a business' obligation to prevent harm, even harm by third persons, to its invitees. Id. at 12. Specifically, they cite Fish v. Paul for the proposition that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has "recognized the general duty of a business proprietor to exercise reasonable care......
-
Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc.
...care to a plaintiff is a matter of law for the court. See McPherson v. McPherson, 1998 ME 141, ¶ 8, 712 A.2d 1043, 1045; Fish v. Paul, 574 A.2d 1365, 1366 (Me. 1990). In determining whether a duty exists, we must ascertain whether the alleged wrongdoer is "`under any obligation for the bene......