Opinion ID: 2443516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Recovery for Time and Effort in Negligence

Text: [¶ 9] The tort of negligence does not compensate individuals for the typical annoyances or inconveniences that are a part of everyday life. See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts § 30, at 165 (W. Page Keeton ed., 5th ed. 1984) (Negligent conduct in itself is not such an interference with the interests of the world at large that there is any right to complain of it, or to be free from it, except in the case of some individual whose interests have suffered.). Liability in negligence, therefore, ordinarily requires proof of personal injury or property damage. See Simmons, Zillman & Gregory, Maine Tort Law § 19.02 at 19-8 to 19-11 (2004 ed.). An individual's time, alone, is not legally protected from the negligence of others. [1] [¶ 10] When personal injury is established, loss of time is a cognizable harm as it is related to loss of earning capacity or wages. See, e.g., Snow v. Villacci, 2000 ME 127, ¶¶ 9-12, 754 A.2d 360, 363-64; Fotter v. Butler, 145 Me. 266, 272, 75 A.2d 160, 163 (1950). Similar types of financial recovery are permissible in connection with property damage. See Walters v. Petrolane-Ne. Gas Serv., Inc., 425 A.2d 968, 973-74 (Me.1981) (approving damages for harm to property and lost profits in a negligence action). In each of these cases, because the time in question could be assigned a value reflecting a loss of earnings or earning opportunities resulting from personal injury or property damage, loss of time was a harm cognizable in negligence. See Snow, 2000 ME 127, ¶¶ 9-12, 754 A.2d at 363-64; Fotter, 145 Me. at 272, 75 A.2d at 163. [¶ 11] Our case law, therefore, does not recognize the expenditure of time and effort alone as a harm. The plaintiffs contend that because their time and effort represented reasonable efforts to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm, it is compensable. However, we do not attach such significance to mitigation efforts. [¶ 12] The doctrine of mitigation of damages, or avoidable consequences, encourages plaintiffs to take reasonable steps to minimize losses caused by a defendant's negligence by prohibiting recovery for any damages that the plaintiff could reasonably have avoided. See Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000 ME 63, ¶ 24, 748 A.2d 961, 970. A corollary of the mitigation doctrine permits the plaintiff to recover for costs and harms incurred during a reasonable effort to mitigate. See Marchesseault v. Jackson, 611 A.2d 95, 99 (Me.1992); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 919(1) (1979); [2] Dan B. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 3.9 (2d ed.1993). However, it must still be established that the time and effort expended constitute a legal injury rather than an inconvenience or annoyance. [¶ 13] Unless the plaintiffs' loss of time reflects a corresponding loss of earnings or earning opportunities, it is not a cognizable injury under Maine law of negligence. See Snow, 2000 ME 127, ¶¶ 9-12, 754 A.2d at 363-64. The cases cited by the plaintiffs do not compel a contrary conclusion. In many of those cases, the party seeking recovery for time and effort expended had alleged at least one claim of intentional tort. See Craddock v. Jones, 143 So. 529, 531 (La.Ct.App.1932); McDonald v. North, 47 Barb. 530 (N.Y.Sup. Ct.1867); Bennett v. Lockwood & Carter, 20 Wend. 223, 224 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1838); EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Jones, 252 S.W.3d 857, 868-69, 871, 872 (Tex.Ct.App.2008). Because liability is often more extensive in cases of intentional torts than those in negligence, intentional tort cases recognizing recovery for time and effort have little bearing on our analysis. Cf. Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2009 ME 67, ¶¶ 9-10, 29, 974 A.2d 286, 290, 295 (noting, in the context of a charitable immunity analysis, that recovery for intentional torts may be broader than it is for negligence claims); Garland v. Roy, 2009 ME 86, ¶ 26, 976 A.2d 940, 948. In other cases, a passing mention of loss of time without adequate facts to demonstrate how those damages were being measured is insufficient to persuade us that the expenditure of time and effort alone is a harm recoverable in negligence. See Kuhn v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 05-P-810, 2006 WL 3007931, at  (Mass.App.Ct. Oct. 23, 2006); Freeman v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 101 Kan. 516, 167 P. 1062, 1063-65 (1917). [¶ 14] Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, our case law does not recognize time and effort as a compensable injury in the context of the plaintiffs' negligence claim. We decline to expand recovery in negligence in these circumstances.