Opinion ID: 2310776
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Possession or Control of Premises or Licensed to be Thereon

Text: [¶ 6] The first element of the defense at issue is whether Dyer was a person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 104(1). At trial, the court and Dyer focused solely on whether Dyer was in possession or control of the premises. Dyer contends that he and Patterson were, at the very least, licensed to be on the premises. A licensee in the context of tort law is a person who is privileged to enter or remain on land only by virtue of the possessor's consent. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 330 (1965). Used in this sense, Tweedie, by inviting Dyer, Patterson, and Dixon to enter his apartment, gave all three men a license to be on the premises. Thus, the court erred in focusing solely on possession and control of the premises and ignoring the alternative that the person be licensed or privileged to be thereon. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 104(1); see also Handyman Equip. Rental Co., Inc. v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 20, ¶ 9, 724 A.2d 605, 607 (stating that words must be given meaning and are not to be treated as meaningless and superfluous).