Case Title: Toto v. Knowles

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2021 ME 51

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2021-10-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2021 ME 51 
Docket: 
Cum-20-281 
Argued: 
July 13, 2021 
Decided: 
October 28, 2021 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. 
 
 
CHRISTOPHER TOTO 
 
v. 
 
RAELYN KNOWLES 
 
 
HUMPHREY, J. 
[¶1]  Christopher Toto appeals from a summary judgment entered by the 
Superior Court (Cumberland County, Kennedy, J.) in favor of Raelyn Knowles on 
Toto’s complaint alleging that he was injured as a result of Knowles’s negligent 
operation of a motor vehicle.  Because we conclude that the summary judgment 
record establishes a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether 
Knowles’s negligence caused Toto to suffer injuries, we vacate the summary 
judgment and remand for further proceedings. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The following facts are drawn from the parties’ supported 
statements of material facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Toto as the 
nonprevailing party.  See Kurtz & Perry, P.A. v. Emerson, 2010 ME 107, ¶ 15, 
 
2 
8 A.3d 677.  While stopped in traffic behind a minivan, Toto’s vehicle was struck 
from behind by another vehicle, causing Toto’s vehicle to collide with the 
minivan.  After the collision, Toto complained of a loss of consciousness and 
extreme pain on the top of his head, and he was transported to a hospital for 
evaluation.  After the accident, he suffered headaches, balance issues, and 
impaired vision, none of which he suffered before the accident.   
[¶3]  On August 6, 2018, Toto filed a timely complaint for negligence 
against Knowles, alleging that Knowles was the operator of the vehicle that 
struck Toto’s vehicle from behind.  On December 13, 2019, Knowles moved in 
limine to exclude testimony from an expert designated by Toto—an 
optometrist who would testify that the accident was the cause of “visual 
injuries” suffered by Toto.  Knowles argued that the optometrist’s deposition 
testimony revealed that he was not qualified to opine that the accident had 
caused Toto to suffer what the optometrist called a “visual midline shift.”  
Knowles further argued that “visual midline shift” is not a recognized diagnosis 
in the medical community.   
[¶4]  Anticipating that the court would grant her motion in limine and 
exclude the optometrist’s testimony, Knowles moved for summary judgment in 
January 2020.  In her motion, Knowles argued that without expert testimony 
 3 
regarding complex medical facts, Toto could not prove that the collision caused 
Toto to suffer a “visual midline shift.”   
[¶5]  Toto admitted Knowles’s assertion in her statement of material facts 
that his “‘visual injuries’ and the purportedly related symptoms” were his only 
claimed injuries.  However, he elaborated on his injuries in both his opposing 
statement of material facts and his statement of additional facts, with 
referenced evidentiary support from his deposition.  Specifically, he asserted 
that in addition to impaired vision, he suffered from lost consciousness 
immediately after the accident, headaches, and balance issues.  Knowles 
admitted Toto’s additional assertions of fact without qualification.   
[¶6]  In March 2020, the court granted Knowles’s motion in limine to 
exclude the optometrist’s anticipated expert testimony, determining that the 
optometrist was not qualified to opine on the cause of a “visual midline shift.”  
See M.R. Evid. 702.  The court denied the motion as to the optometrist’s fact 
testimony.1  The court simultaneously denied Knowles’s motion for summary 
judgment, concluding that Toto had presented sufficient evidence that 
                                         
1  To the extent that Toto challenged the ruling on the motion in limine in his brief, he clarified at 
oral argument that he does not appeal from that ruling, and we do not discuss the issue further.   
 
4 
Knowles’s negligent operation of her vehicle caused him to suffer injuries for 
his claim to survive the motion for summary judgment.   
[¶7]  Knowles moved for reconsideration of the court’s order denying her 
motion for summary judgment, reiterating her argument that the 
determination that Toto suffered a “visual midline shift” was based on complex 
medical facts that require expert testimony and that, without it, Toto’s only 
remaining evidence of proximate causation was an insufficient assertion that 
Toto realized symptoms after the accident.  On October 7, 2020, the court 
entered a judgment granting Knowles’s motion for reconsideration and 
entering a summary judgment in her favor.  The court concluded that “visual 
midline shift” was the sole injury asserted by Toto and that, without expert 
testimony, Toto could not establish proximate causation.  Toto timely appealed.  
See 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2021); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).   
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶8]  We review the entry of a summary judgment de novo, “considering 
the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonprevailing party to determine 
whether the parties’ statements of material facts and the record evidence to 
which the statements refer demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of 
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  
 5 
Kurtz & Perry, 2010 ME 107, ¶ 15, 8 A.3d 677 (quotation marks omitted).  “A 
material fact is one that can affect the outcome of the case, and there is a 
‘genuine issue’ when there is sufficient evidence for a fact-finder to choose 
between competing versions of the fact.”  Stewart-Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass’n, 
2011 ME 26, ¶ 8, 13 A.3d 773.   
[¶9]  “A cause of action for negligence has four elements: (1) a duty of 
care owed to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an injury; and 
(4) causation, that is, a finding that the breach of the duty of care was a cause of 
the injury.”  Est. of Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 2013 ME 13, ¶ 16, 60 A.3d 759.  
“When the defendant is the moving party, [s]he must establish that there is no 
genuine dispute of fact and that the undisputed facts would entitle h[er] to 
judgment as a matter of law.”  Est. of Cabatit v. Canders, 2014 ME 133, ¶ 8, 105 
A.3d 439.  “It then becomes the plaintiff’s burden to make out the prima facie 
case and demonstrate that there are disputed facts.”  Id.   
[¶10]  At issue here is whether the accident proximately caused Toto’s 
injuries.  “Proximate cause is an action occurring in a natural and continuous 
sequence, uninterrupted by an intervening cause, that produces an injury that 
would not have occurred but for the action.”  Cyr v. Adamar Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 
2000 ME 110, ¶ 6, 752 A.2d 603.  A fact finder may draw reasonable inferences 
 
6 
in determining issues of causation.  See, e.g., Marcoux v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols 
Portland Div., 2005 ME 107, ¶ 26, 881 A.2d 1138 (holding that a fact finder may 
infer causation without speculation from supported assertions that the plaintiff 
fell after she made physical contact with a stain on the floor). 
[¶11]  Although causation in a vehicle accident case is usually a matter to 
be resolved by the fact finder, summary judgment may be appropriate if the 
record is completely devoid of evidence supporting causation.  Est. of Smith, 
2013 ME 13, ¶ 18, 60 A.3d 759.  Evidence “submitted in opposition to summary 
judgment[] need not be persuasive at that stage,” but it “must be sufficient to 
allow a fact-finder to make a factual determination without speculating.”  Id. 
¶ 19. 
[¶12]  The amount or type of evidence required to prove causation may 
turn on the complexity of the facts.  See Tolliver v. Dep’t of Transp., 2008 ME 83, 
¶ 42, 948 A.2d 1223 (“Our precedents also indicate that in cases involving 
complex facts beyond the ken of the average juror, . . . more substantial evidence 
of proximate cause may be required.”).  Although expert testimony may be 
required if a party is asserting complex medical facts to establish causation, 
see Merriam v. Wanger, 2000 ME 159, ¶¶ 11-18, 757 A.2d 778, expert testimony 
is not required if “the negligence and harmful results are sufficiently obvious as 
 7 
to lie within common knowledge,” Patten v. Milam, 480 A.2d 774, 778 
(Me. 1984) (quotation marks omitted). 
[¶13]  Thus, “[w]here a plaintiff emerges from a sudden rear-end 
automobile accident with a hurt neck, it is permissible for the jury to infer that 
the injury was caused by defendant’s negligent driving where there was no 
evidence of a pre-existing neck injury.”  1 Dan B. Dobbs et al., The Law of Torts 
§ 191 at 639 (2d ed. 2011); see, e.g., Foddrill v. Crane, 894 N.E.2d 1070, 1074, 
1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (finding the causal connection between a rear-end 
collision and neck pain, headaches, and other injuries was “not so complex that 
a layperson would be unable to comprehend it without expert testimony” when 
there was no evidence that plaintiff suffered from prior neck injuries, the 
collision was forceful enough that plaintiff hit her head on the roof of her 
vehicle, and plaintiff immediately afterward felt pain in her neck).  
[¶14]  Construing the supported statements of material facts in the light 
most favorable to Toto, as we must, see MSR Recycling, LLC v. Weeks & Hutchins, 
LLC, 2019 ME 125, ¶ 6, 214 A.3d 1, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of 
material fact as to whether the accident caused Toto some injury.2  Although 
                                         
2  We acknowledge that in Toto’s statements of material facts, he both (1) admitted that “[t]he 
‘visual injuries’ and the purportedly related symptoms [we]re the only injuries” he was claiming that 
the accident caused and (2) asserted that he suffered loss of consciousness, headaches, and balance 
problems separate from his vision issues.  To the extent that Toto contradicted himself in his 
 
8 
Toto did not offer admissible evidence that the accident proximately caused a 
“visual midline shift,” see Merriam, 2000 ME 159, ¶¶ 11-18, 757 A.2d 778, he 
did assert and offer evidence of facts sufficient to generate a genuine issue of 
material fact as to whether the accident caused him harm.  Using common 
knowledge and drawing reasonable inferences, a fact finder could determine 
that the accident caused some injury to Toto.  See Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158, 
¶ 9, 784 A.2d 18; Foddrill, 894 N.E.2d at 1074, 1078. 
[¶15]  Because Knowles’s motion for summary judgment must therefore 
be denied, “facts admitted by the parties solely for the purpose of the summary 
judgment motion shall have no preclusive effect at trial.”  See also CitiMortgage, 
Inc. v. Chartier, 2015 ME 17, ¶ 10 n.6, 111 A.3d 39 (stating that the purpose of 
Rule 56(d) is “‘to make it unnecessary to controvert facts for purposes of 
summary judgment solely because of concern about the possible preclusive 
effect of any admission of fact at trial or in other subsequent proceedings’” 
(quoting M.R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Note – November 2011)).  As the Advisory 
Note to the November 2011 amendment to Rule 56 explains, “The amendment 
                                         
deposition testimony or conveyed his understanding of the interrelatedness of his symptoms after 
his diagnosis and treatment, it is for a fact finder to weigh the evidence and determine whether to 
accept or reject Toto’s testimony “in whole or in part.”  Sulikowski v. Sulikowski, 2019 ME 143, ¶ 10, 
216 A.3d 893 (quotation marks omitted). 
 9 
to Rule 56(d) establishes that a fact admitted or not opposed by any party solely 
for purposes of summary judgment is not deemed admitted for any other 
purpose if the motion for summary judgment is denied.” 
[¶16]  Thus, although Knowles may eventually attempt to impeach Toto’s 
trial testimony with statements that Toto made during the deposition to which 
the parties referred in their statements of material facts, the denial of a motion 
for summary judgment will not preclude Toto from offering fact evidence about 
his post-accident symptoms at trial.  See M.R. Civ. P. 56(d).  The ruling on the 
motion in limine will, however, unless modified before trial, preclude Toto from 
offering expert testimony from the identified optometrist about the accident 
having caused Toto to suffer a “visual midline shift.”  The trial court on remand 
may be called upon to address whether expert testimony is necessary to prove 
causation of any medically complex injuries through other experts, but such 
issues are not presently before us; we here decide only that there is a genuine 
issue of material fact on the element of causation. 
[¶17]  In sum, the court erred in entering a summary judgment in 
Knowles’s favor.  We vacate the summary judgment and remand the matter for 
further proceedings. 
 
10 
The entry is: 
 
Summary judgment vacated.  Remanded for 
further proceedings. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David Kreisler, Esq., and Gary Goldberg, Esq. (orally), Terry Garmey & 
Associates, Portland, for appellant Christopher Toto 
 
L. John Topchik, Esq. (orally), Law Offices of John B. Schulte, Portland, for 
appellee Raeylyn Knowles 
 
 
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number CV-2018-354 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY