Opinion ID: 2308093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶ 2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Quirion, as the nonmoving party, see Marcoux v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 2005 ME 107, ¶ 5, 881 A.2d 1138, 1141, the parties' M.R. Civ. P. 56(h) statements of material fact and referenced record evidence reveal the following. See Longley v. Knapp, 1998 ME 142, ¶ 16, 713 A.2d 939, 944. On July 2, 2001, Quirion was staying at the Hampton Inn. While Quirion was standing outside the hotel, an awning was blown from the building and hit her, causing her injury. [¶ 3] The awning was first placed on the building at the time that the building was constructed approximately nine years prior to Quirion's injury. The awning had been attached to the building through clips that were in turn attached to raw bolts embedded in the stucco of the building. Both the medical record from the hospital to which Quirion was taken the day of her injury and a doctor's record of later treatment of her injuries reflect that she informed the doctors that the awning was blown from the building by the wind. In her opposing statement of material facts, submitted in response to the motions for summary judgment, Quirion stated that the only way the `raw bolts' [anchored in the building] could come out of the wall would be to be pulled out by strong wind on the awning. [¶ 4] A little over one month prior to the accident, Geroux had removed the awnings from the building, painted them, and then reattached them to the building. Geroux did not remove the raw bolts from the building, however, nor is there any evidence that he otherwise loosened them. After the awnings were painted and reattached to the building, the manager of the hotel visually inspected the awnings. As a matter of general maintenance, however, the awnings were not periodically checked to determine whether they were secure. [¶ 5] Quirion filed a complaint against Hanover in the Superior Court alleging negligence. Hanover answered the complaint denying that it was negligent, and then filed a third-party complaint against Geroux, alleging that if anyone had been negligent, it was Geroux. After Geroux answered Hanover's complaint, Quirion amended her complaint to include Geroux as a second defendant. [¶ 6] Following discovery, Geroux moved for summary judgment. Both Hanover and Quirion opposed Geroux's motion, and Hanover separately argued that if Geroux was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim, then it, too, was entitled to summary judgment. The court entered a summary judgment in favor of Geroux on both Quirion's complaint and on Hanover's third-party complaint. The court noted that both motion opponents agreed that the summary judgment record disclosed no direct evidence of negligence by Geroux. The court concluded that, because the evidence indicated that the incident was caused by a strong wind, the record does not support the aspect of a res ipsa negligence claim that is predicated on evidence (direct or otherwise) that the accident would not have happened in the absence of negligence. [¶ 7] The court concluded that Quirion had provided no evidence that Hanover was negligent in hiring Geroux, or that Geroux was negligent in removing, painting, or replacing the awning. Quirion filed this appeal of the summary judgments entered in favor of both Geroux and Hanover. Hanover and Quirion later entered into a settlement agreement, and thus the appeal from the summary judgment in favor of Geroux is the only matter still before us.