Opinion ID: 2329148
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Marcoux's Affidavit Contradicted her Deposition Testimony

Text: [¶ 20] A trial court should disregard an affidavit submitted in support of a party's statement of material facts that clearly contradicts the party's prior testimony. Zip Lube, Inc. v. Coastal Sav. Bank, 1998 ME 81, ¶ 10, 709 A.2d 733, 735. Nichols asserts that (1) Marcoux's deposition testimony should be interpreted as establishing that it was not the green stain that caused her to fall, that she did not know what caused her to fall, and that she did not see anything on the floor before or after her fall; and (2) her affidavit claimed that the green stain caused her to fall. [¶ 21] Marcoux testified at her deposition that she saw a green stain on the floor to her right and that she lost her footing just as she walked past it; she fell on her right knee; she saw that the floor was shiny where she fell, but not green like the stain; and after her fall she observed a clear grease stain on the right knee of her pants. In her affidavit, Marcoux stated that she observed some dark green fluid pooled under a machine on her right and she attempted to walk by it; there was a darker section of fluid, and the color faded as it spread; she noticed that the floor was slippery beneath her feet; she slipped and fell on her right knee on the slippery floor surface; and that after the fall she observed a dark fluid stain on the right knee of her pants. [¶ 22] Although not entirely consistent, these two renditions are not so clearly at odds as to justify disregarding Marcoux's affidavit. See id. If Marcoux's characterization of the substance as a stain and the floor as shiny in her deposition are replaced with her characterization of the substance as a fluid and the floor as slippery as in her affidavit, the two renditions are substantially the same. This is not an instance in which an interested witness has given clear answers to unambiguous questions at a deposition and later creates a conflict to avoid summary judgment with an affidavit that is clearly contradictory. Id. (quotation marks omitted).