Opinion ID: 2299859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: negligent maintenance of cell door

Text: [¶ 11] The trial court agreed with Roberts that there was a factual issue that had to be resolved at trial concerning whether the maintenance of the cell door was negligent. If the State had negligently maintained Roberts' cell door and if that negligent maintenance was a significant cause of the injury to Roberts, then the State would have been liable for the injury. A governmental entity is liable for its negligent acts or omissions in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances to any public building. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A(2). At the trial on the issue of the maintenance of the door, the State presented evidence that the 230 pound cell door closed in the manner it was designed to close and that it was no different from any other cell door. Although Roberts testified that something was wrong with the door, the fact finder was not compelled to believe him. [5] The entry is: Judgment affirmed.