Opinion ID: 2330417
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maine's Common Law to Date

Text: [¶ 17] Addressing the existence and scope of a duty as it relates to reducing and eliminating the driving risks created by Maine winters requires us to establish the context in which such decisions are made. The normal annual snowfall statewide in Maine is approximately eighty-five inches. [6] Due to Maine's expansive land area, [7] this number varies greatly from town to town depending upon factors such as altitude, latitude, and proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. For instance, an inland town, Caribou, receives an average annual snowfall of 116 inches, whereas Portland, a southern coastal city, receives an average annual snowfall of about sixty-six inches. [8] The risk of icy roads in the winter is equally substantial. Over the past ten years, the average statewide winter temperature in Maine has ranged from 14.1 degrees Fahrenheit to 23.4 degrees Fahrenheit. [9] [¶ 18] Because the volume and frequency of snowfall in Maine is so pervasive, the common law in this state has not assigned open-ended responsibility for snow-related accidents. See, e.g., Denman, 1998 ME 12, 704 A.2d 411; Ouelette v. Miller, 134 Me. 162, 183 A. 341 (1936). Our common law reflects the widely held public acceptance of heavy snowfall and difficult driving as facts of life in Maine. [¶ 19] A glimpse into Maine's legal history yields case law reaching back into the nineteenth century illustrating our viewpoint on common law duties as they relate to snow and ice. Over the years, we have made clear that an individual's common law duty will extend only so far in negligence actions related to winter weather, and we have on multiple occasions defined, limited, and restricted this duty. [¶ 20] In 1879, we held that a railroad company was under no obligation to keep the sidewalk north of its location free from a defective condition of snow and ice where the plaintiff had sustained injuries from slipping and falling as he approached the railroad depot. Quimby v. Boston & Me. R.R. Co., 69 Me. 340, 341-42 (1879). In Lee v. McLaughlin, the plaintiff sustained injuries stemming from snow falling off a roof and he sought to hold the building's landlord liable in a negligence action. 86 Me. 410, 411, 30 A. 65, 65-66 (1894). We determined that it was the occupier (tenant) of the building who was bound, as between himself and the public, to keep buildings abutting the streets in good repair so that they would be safe for travelers passing by. Id. at 411, 30 A. at 66. The building owner, however, did not owe a duty to the plaintiff. Id. In 1905, we held that a defendant homeowner was not liable for a plaintiff's injuries stemming from a slip and fall on naturally occurring ice on a sidewalk abutting the defendant's property. Greenlaw v. Milliken, 100 Me. 440, 442, 62 A. 145, 146 (1905). Similarly, in Rosenberg v. Chapman National Bank, we held that the defendant landlord owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, a tenant who had slipped and fallen on icy stairs outside the apartment building. 126 Me. 403, 405, 139 A. 82, 83 (1927). [¶ 21] In 1928, we held that although the defendant, a railroad company, was required to use due care to provide a reasonably safe workplace, this duty did not extend to an accident sustained by the plaintiff, an employee, that resulted from slipping and falling while walking across timber covered with snow and ice in an open boxcar. Morey v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 127 Me. 190, 193, 142 A. 585, 586 (1928). There we noted again the context in which duty is considered in a state with harsh winters: The evidence brings this car of lumber from which the plaintiff fell, down from Northern Maine in February, a section of the State and season of the year marked by low temperatures and frequent falls of snow. Railroads are there operated subject to all the incidents of such climatic conditions, and open cars and their loads of necessity at times accumulate snow and ice. In safeguarding its employees from injury, the railroad is bound to use due care to make its cars and their loads reasonably safe for the passage of its brakemen, but it is not bound to anticipate and guard against every possible danger, or such as no prudent person would reasonably expect to happen. Id. [¶ 22] In 1936, we held that at common law, private individuals were not liable for injuries to others occasioned by natural causes, such as snow and ice on a sidewalk abutting a person's home, which had caused the plaintiff to slip and fall. Ouelette, 134 Me. at 164, 183 A. at 342. In 1938, we addressed the issue of common carriers in relation to snow and ice when a plaintiff passenger was injured after slipping on an icy lower step as she tried to disembark from a street car, and we concluded that requiring the carrier to fully protect against hazards created by snow and ice was simply impracticable: We think the true rule as to the duty of the carrier under such conditions is this: Assuming that the steps of the car are in proper condition when it begins a specific journey, the railroad company should not be held responsible, under ordinary circumstances, for the existence of snow or ice upon the steps accumulating through natural causes, during the journey, until it has had a reasonably sufficient time and opportunity, consistently with its duty to transport its passengers, to remove such accumulations. To require the immediate and continuous removal of all snow from the steps . . . would be impracticable. Haines v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co., 136 Me. 60, 63, 1 A.2d 353, 354 (1938) (quoting Davis v. Waterville, Fair-field & Oakland Ry., 117 Me. 32, 33, 102 A. 374, 375 (1917)). [¶ 23] Building on our decision in Ouelette, we recently once again confirmed that defendants, as owners and occupants of the land abutting the street, do not owe a duty to others for injuries resulting from the natural accumulation of snow and ice. Denman, 1998 ME 12, ¶ 6, 704 A.2d at 413-14. [10] [¶ 24] Contrary to Alexander's argument, our long-established limitation on liability related to winter weather hazards was not changed by our holding in Budzko v. One City Center Associates Limited Partnership, 2001 ME 37, 767 A.2d 310, and Budzko is not helpful in the question of duty before us. There, we held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendants, business property owners, had failed to exercise reasonable care in keeping their own premises reasonably safe. Id. ¶ 1, 767 A.2d at 312. The defendants owned the building on which the accident occurred. Id. ¶ 2, 767 A.2d at 312. The area where the injury occurred was quite limited, comprising only an icy stairway on the side of the building. Id. ¶ 5, 767 A.2d at 313. The alleged fall occurred during business hours when the defendants had encouraged hundreds of invitees to enter the premises and when the property owner could reasonably have been expected to know that the steps were unsafe. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15, 767 A.2d at 314, 315. Thus, our holding in Budzko was much more informed by the nature of landowner liability for hazardous conditions than it was related to the buildup of snow and ice. No open-ended duty was asserted. Rather, the defendants were charged with the ordinary responsibility of a landowner, regarding a small and manageable part of its property, to make reasonable efforts to reduce risks to those using the property. In contrast, here, we are focused on what duty, if any, is owed to a private party on the public roads by a contractor who is responsible for many such roads. Budzko, therefore, provides very little guidance. [¶ 25] The facts in the matter before us are much more similar to those in Denman. There, a maintenance company and a bank (the defendants) contracted to keep the public sidewalks outside the bank clear of ice and snow, as required pursuant to a municipal ordinance. Denman, 1998 ME 12, ¶ 2, 704 A.2d at 413. The plaintiff slipped on the sidewalk on a day when the company had failed to clear it. Id. We affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Id. ¶ 1, 704 A.2d at 412-13. We held that the defendants did not owe a duty to the plaintiff as a possessor of land because they had not intended to control the sidewalk and because their actions were involuntary and undertaken in compliance with applicable law. Id. ¶¶ 5, 7, 704 A.2d at 413, 414. [11] The maintenance company and the bank did not create a duty to others by undertaking to clear the sidewalk because the company had not affirmatively performed in any way that day, and thus could not have created a hazard. Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 704 A.2d at 415. In the case before us, Mitchell, like the defendant in Denman, had a duty only to the Town to perform in accordance with the terms of his contract, and he did not owe a duty of care to other private parties.