Opinion ID: 2362938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duty of W/S Biddeford

Text: [¶ 16] A landowner is subject to liability for nuisance or injury created by the activity of a third party on the land if the owner knows, or has reason to know, that the activity is causing, or will cause, an unreasonable risk of injury or nuisance and the landowner consents to the activity or fails to exercise reasonable care to prevent the injury or nuisance. See Eaton v. Cormier, 2000 ME 65, ¶ 7, 748 A.2d 1006, 1008; Town of Stonington v. Galilean Gospel Temple, 1999 ME 2, ¶ 21, 722 A.2d 1269, 1273; see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 414 A (1965) which provides: A possessor of land who has employed or permitted an independent contractor to do work on the land, and knows or has reason to know that the activities of the contractor . . . involve an unreasonable risk of physical harm to those outside of the land, is subject to liability to them for such harm if he fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against it. [¶ 17] Here blasting, an inherently dangerous activity, was being conducted within eighty-five feet of Maravell's office, apparently with no sight, sound, or blast barrier in between. Because W/S Biddeford's knowledge of that risk may be imputed, the only issue in dispute is whether the risk was unreasonable. The record, as it presently stands, does not permit the court to conclude, as a matter of law, that there is no dispute as to material fact that the risks of injury from blasting eighty-five feet from Maravell's office were not unreasonable. As there remain disputes as to this material fact regarding W/S Biddeford's liability, the summary judgment in their favor must be vacated. [4] The entry is: Judgment vacated.