Articles Posted in Premise Liability

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently issued an opinion involving a negligent maintenance and operation claim against the University of Maine. The plaintiff suffered injuries after she slipped and fell on a patch of untreated ice on a campus parking lot. In response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the University moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA). Specifically, they argued that the parking lot fell within an exception of the MTCA.

Generally, under the MTCA, governmental entities are immune from civil tort lawsuits involving the recovery of damages. Unlike other states, the MTCA recognizes an “exception-to-immunity approach rather than an exception-to-liability approach.” One such exception provides that governmental entities are liable for negligent acts or omissions in the “construction, operation or maintenance” of any buildings or the “appurtenances to any public buildings.”

While the MTCA does not explicitly define “appurtenance,” the Court considers appurtenance as an “object or thing that belongs or is attached to a public building.” As such, to be an appurtenance, the object at issue must be (1) physically annexed to the property, (2) adapted to the property and (3) intended to be irremovable from the property.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, the State’s highest court, recently issued a decision on the liability of landlords in Maine premises liability cases. The issue before the court was whether reserving access to the premises for inspections and repairs created a dispute about whether the landlords had exclusive control over the premises.

In that case, a woman was visiting her daughter and son-in-law at a house they were renting. She was going down the stairs in the house and fell off the landing at the bottom of the stairs. The landing step was eleven inches tall, which was taller than the rest of the stairs on the staircase, and did not comply with the applicable building codes. The woman filed a premises liability lawsuit against the landlords alleging that they were liable for the injuries she suffered due to the fall.

Under Maine premises liability law, a landlord is liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on property under a tenant’s exclusive control if the landlord: 1) fails to disclose to the tenant the existence of a latent defect that a landlord knows or should have known existed and which the tenant did not know of and should not have reasonably discovered; 2) gratuitously undertakes to make repairs and negligently completes the repairs; or 3) expressly agrees to maintain the premises in good repair. A landlord is liable for injuries to the tenant, as well as the tenant’s guests and others on the premises with the tenant’s consent. Exclusive control generally refers to the power over the premises that a landlord reserves according to the terms of the lease.

Everyone has seen a yellow wet floor sign warning you that the area you’re walking into may be slippery. When you slip and fall or are injured in Maine on another party’s property, however, you may have a premises liability claim if the individual failed to provide take the necessary steps to ensure the area was reasonably safe.

As an example, in a recent state Supreme Court decision, the court addressed what duty, if any, is owed by a hospital to an individual who is on its premises solely to visit one of its patients. The plaintiff was visiting his hospitalized wife when he slipped and fell on ice in the hospital’s parking lot. The plaintiff sued the hospital, alleging inadequate snow and ice removal in the parking lot caused him to fall and that the hospital breached the duty of care it owed to him. The hospital was granted summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the court sided with the plaintiff and reversed the lower court’s summary judgment decision. The court concluded that the plaintiff was an invitee, so the hospital owed him a duty to keep the premises and grounds in reasonably safe condition. Invitees, who are owed the highest duty of care in premises liability claims, can be established in two ways: either by showing that they were on the premises “for a purpose connected with the business conducted on the land,” or that “it can be reasonably be said that the visit may confer a business, commercial, monetary, or other tangible benefit to the landowner.” Because the plaintiff was on hospital grounds to visit his wife, which was closely connected to the hospital’s business, he satisfied the first element and established himself as an invitee.

Recently, the City of Portland appealed a denial of its motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds in a Maine slip-and-fall lawsuit. In this case, the plaintiff suffered various injuries after, slipping and falling on ice outside of the Portland Police Department Headquarters’ lobby. Evidently, the plaintiff fell on a partially open brick-paved plaza about seven feet from the exit. The particular location is part of the defendant’s building and is used as a parking area and holding pen. The victim and his wife filed a negligence lawsuit against the City. In response, the City filed various affirmative defenses, including being immune under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA).

Under the MTCA, “all governmental entities shall be immune from suit on any tort claims seeking recovery.” However, the immunity is subject to several exceptions, including the “public building” exception. Under the statute, a “public building” is one that is accessible to the public and serves a public function. When a dispute arises regarding whether an area “belongs” to a building, courts review the area to determine whether it is a “fixture.” The law defines a fixture as something that is “physically annexed” to the property, adapted to the realty, and intended to be irremovable from the property. Similarly, an appurtenance is an object that belongs or is attached to a public building, not including personal property outside the building.

In this case, the defendants argued that the area the plaintiff’s fall did not fit into the statute’s public building exception. The plaintiff did not argue that the area was, in fact, a “public building,” rather, they argued that the plaza was a part of the defendant’s building. In the alternative, the plaintiff contended that the plaza was an appurtenance or a fixture to the building.