Opinion ID: 2084226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Alleged Prejudicial Errors in the Charge

Text: The preceding discussion has delineated in detail that the law of Maine avoids imposing upon an owner, or occupier, of land an obligation to provide a business invitee with premises which are completely safe i. e., which are free of any and all hazards or risks of harm. Rather, the duty is that the owner or occupier of land shall exercise reasonable care to provide premises which are reasonably safe. Walker v. Weymouth, supra, and Jamieson et al. v. Lewiston, Gorham Raceways, Inc., supra. Thus, some hazards, or risks of harm, may exist without violation of duty, provided that they are ordinarily tolerable under the totality of circumstances in which the business is usually conducted and life is lived in its varying contexts. If, therefore, a defendant owner, or occupier, of business premises offers conditions and installations which are free of unreasonable risks of danger to business invitees, including child invitees, even though some hazards are present, defendant is without legal liability. In the present case the presiding Justice gave the jury instructions which, in at least three significant instances, purported to enunciate a principle different from the established law of Maine. At the commencement of his analysis of the duty of care owed to a business invitee the presiding Justice charged: And he must maintain the store, and construct the store, and not have any hazards. Or if there is one he cannot eliminate, he must warn the person, the invitees, that there is such a hazard, if he has knowledge of it. That is the duty of the storekeeper. (R. p. 74) (emphasis supplied)