Opinion ID: 2360998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law

Text: [¶ 6] We review the denial of a motion for a judgment as a matter of law to determine whether by any reasonable view of the evidence, including the inferences to be drawn therefrom, taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the verdict can be sustained. Williams v. Inverness Corp., 664 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Me.1995); M.R. Civ. P. 50. [¶ 7] First, defendant contends that it owed no duty to plaintiff because it was not the possessor of the premises where the injury occurred. The existence of a duty of care is a question of law. Trusiani v. Cumberland & York Distributors, 538 A.2d 258, 261 (Me.1988). We find no support in the law for defendant's assertion that it owes no duty of care to those who may be injured by devices that it installs in homes throughout the state. A non-possessor who negligently creates a dangerous condition on the land may be liable for reasonably foreseeable harms. The reasonable foreseeability of injury to others from one's acts or from one's failure to act raises a duty in law to proceed in the exercise of reasonable care. It is not necessary that the precise type of injury be foreseen nor the specific person injured. Quinn v. Moore, 292 A.2d 846, 850 (Me. 1972). The defendant in Quinn was a nonpossessor subcontractor whose negligent installation of metal lath flooring created a dangerous condition resulting in an injury to a construction worker. Moore argued that he owed no duty to Quinn after the subcontract had been completed and when he had no longer had possession or control of the flooring. We rejected this argument and noted that [n]egligence is gauged by the ability to anticipate. Id. at 851. The common-law test of duty is the probability or foreseeability of injury to the plaintiff. Brewer v. Roosevelt Motor Lodge, 295 A.2d 647, 651 (Me.1972). [¶ 8] Defendant next argues that if it owes any duty, it should not exceed the duty owed by possessors of land. In particular, defendant seeks to apply the rule for known and obvious dangers on the land. A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 343A(1) (1965). We have applied section 343A(1) in previous possessor liability cases. E.g. Williams v. Boise Cascade Corp., 507 A.2d 576, 577 (Me.1986); Baker v. Mid-Maine Medical Center, 499 A.2d 464, 467 (Me.1985); Isaacson v. Husson College, 297 A.2d 98, 105 (Me.1972). We have not applied the rule to non-possessors. Because its application in the present case would not alter the result, we need not decide whether the rule controls the liability of non-possessors. [1] [¶ 9] Contrary to defendant's contention, section 343A does not express a no duty rule. The rule imposes on the possessor of land a duty to use reasonable care to prevent risks arising from known and obvious conditions on the land that the possessor should reasonably anticipate causing harm to others despite such knowledge or obviousness. There are ... cases in which the possessor of land can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee notwithstanding its known or obvious danger. In such cases the possessor is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care which he owes to the invitee for his protection.... Such reason to expect harm to the visitor from known or obvious dangers may arise, for example, where the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee's attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it. Such reason may also arise where the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee will proceed to encounter the known or obvious danger because to a reasonable man in his position the advantages of doing so would outweigh the apparent risk. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 343A cmt. f (1965). Even as a possessor of the land, defendant would have a duty of care under the circumstances of this case. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, does not compel the conclusion that, as a matter of law, a reasonably prudent person should not have anticipated harm to persons using the stairway despite the known or obvious danger presented by the utility services box.