Case Brief: Merrill v. Central Maine Power Company
Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Citation: Merrill v. Central Maine Power Co., 608 A.2d 169 (Maine 1992)
Date Decided: January 28, 1992
Background:
In the case of Merrill v. Central Maine Power Company, the plaintiff, Doris Merrill, sustained serious injuries when she came into contact with a power line owned by Central Maine Power Company (CMP). Merrill was attempting to trim a tree on her property that was in proximity to the power line. The power line was not properly marked, nor was the area where it was located clearly delineated, leading to Merrill's unintentional contact.
Merrill filed a lawsuit against CMP, asserting that the company was negligent in its duties to maintain safe conditions around its power lines and to provide adequate warnings to individuals working near them. She claimed that CMP's failure to mark the power line properly constituted negligence that resulted in her injuries.
Issue:
The central issue in this case was whether Central Maine Power Company was liable for Merrill's injuries due to negligence in marking and maintaining safety around its power lines.
Holding:
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that Central Maine Power Company was liable for Merrill's injuries based on the company's negligence in failing to mark the power line adequately and for not ensuring the safety of individuals working near the line.
Reasoning:
The court analyzed the responsibilities of utility companies to maintain safe conditions around their equipment and the duty owed to individuals in proximity to those facilities. The court noted that utility companies have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of their power lines, particularly in ensuring that these lines are adequately marked and that the risks they pose are communicated to the public.
The court found that the evidence presented showed that the power line was not marked in a way that would alert individuals working nearby to its presence, which was a significant oversight on the part of CMP. The court emphasized that this failure to mark the line created a foreseeable risk of harm to individuals like Merrill who might be working in the vicinity.
Additionally, the court noted that Merrill had no prior knowledge of the power line's presence, which contributed to her lack of awareness of the potential danger. The court concluded that CMP's negligence in failing to mark the power line directly led to Merrill's injuries.
Conclusion:
As a result of these findings, the court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of Merrill, allowing her to recover damages for her injuries. The ruling highlighted the importance of utility companies' duty to ensure that their infrastructure is safe and adequately marked to prevent accidents.
Significance:
Merrill v. Central Maine Power Company is significant in the realm of tort law, particularly regarding negligence and the responsibilities of utility companies. The case reinforces the legal standards that companies must adhere to in order to ensure public safety, particularly when their equipment poses potential hazards.
List of Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Hargrove - Discussed the duty of care owed by utility companies to maintain safe conditions around their infrastructure.
- Dorr v. Schenck - Analyzed the foreseeability of harm in negligence cases, emphasizing the duty to protect the public.
Similar Cases
- McGowan v. C.D. Hylton Co. - Explored liability issues concerning utility companies and their duty to mark hazardous areas appropriately.
- Decker v. Maine Central Railroad Co. - Focused on the responsibilities of transportation companies in ensuring safe conditions around their facilities.
Douglas Merrill appeals from the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J.), in favor of Central Maine Power Company (CMP), in Merrill's action seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by an attractive nuisance located on CMP's property. 1063*1063 We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
ReplyDeleteOn June 13, 1976, Merrill, then nine years of age, entered CMP's property in South Berwick to fish in the Salmon Falls River. After catching an eel in the river, Merrill walked to the nearby CMP electrical sub-station, climbed the surrounding fence, and attempted to cook the eel by leaning over the top of the fence and placing the eel on a live electrical wire. Merrill received an electric shock and suffered severe burns.
Merrill's complaint alleges, inter alia, a cause of action under the theory of attractive nuisance.[1] The court granted a summary judgment in favor of CMP, finding that (1) Merrill appreciated the risk at the time of the accident; (2) electrical sub-stations are not, as a matter of law, attractive nuisances; and (3) CMP is immune from liability under the recreational use statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1993).[2] This timely appeal followed.
In Jones v. Billings, 289 A.2d 39 (Me.1972), we incorporated the attractive nuisance doctrine into Maine law by adopting the definition provided in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 (1965):
A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if
(a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and
(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and
(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and
(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.
Jones, 289 A.2d at 42 (quoting Restatement). We will apply a strict interpretation of the Restatement criteria in determining whether a plaintiff has satisfied its burden of establishing the existence of an attractive nuisance. Id. at 43.
Read more at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10818750987570060169&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#sthash.Ear4gvGq.dpuf