 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thibodeau v. Slaney6/21/2000
Argued: April 5, 2000
Kevin M. Thibodeau appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Somerset County, Marsano, J.) determining that Thibodeau's negligence claim was subject to the exclusivity provision of the Maine Liquor Liability Act (MLLA) and vacating a jury verdict and judgment that had been entered in his favor. Thibodeau argues that it was error for the court to vacate the judgment because the facts of the case he presented were properly decided pursuant to his cause of action for negligence and did not fall within the scope of the MLLA. Daniel Slaney argues that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed even if his MLLA argument is invalid because of Thibodeau's comparative fault and improper closing argument.
Because the MLLA issue was not properly presented or preserved, and because there is no other error affecting substantial rights which justifies overturning the jury's verdict, we vacate the trial court's action and reinstate the judgment on the jury's verdict.
I. CASE HISTORY
On November 4, 1995, Kevin Thibodeau and Kevin Slaney, Daniel Slaney's brother, prepared to voluntarily assist in staining Daniel Slaney's house. Prior to arriving at the house, and while waiting for Daniel Slaney to arrive, each man consumed several alcoholic beverages. When Slaney arrived, he walked around the house with Thibodeau pointing out areas that still needed to be stained, including several areas that could only be accessed by going on the roof.
During the course of the project, Thibodeau testified that he consumed several more beers and that Slaney had provided him several shots of Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum. While there is no dispute that Thibodeau had consumed a substantial amount of alcoholic beverages, the parties dispute whether Slaney served any drinks to Thibodeau. Slaney denied that the Captain Morgan's belonged to him and did not recall seeing Thibodeau consume any of it. Slaney also testified that he was unaware of the fact that Thibodeau and his brother had consumed any alcohol before arriving at his home. According to Slaney, Thibodeau did not appear intoxicated and he did not smell alcohol on the breath of either his brother or Thibodeau. Slaney did testify, however, that when his brother and Thibodeau were together, there was a good chance that the consumption of alcohol would be involved in their activities.
When Thibodeau climbed onto the roof to stain the peak of the house, he employed no safety equipment. Using a spray gun, Thibodeau stained the area. Some of the stain apparently ended up on the roof, causing the shingles to become slippery. Because the spray gun could not reach far enough to stain the entire area, Thibodeau attempted to complete the staining using a brush. He then slipped on the wet shingles, fell and sustained numerous injuries.
Thibodeau testified that if he was sober he probably would have used better judgment and balance or alternatively that he would not have attempted to paint the area of the house without the use of safety equipment.
After the close of the evidence, Slaney raised the MLLA for the first time, asserting that it barred Thibodeau's claim. However, Slaney also agreed to a verdict form that did not ask the jury to make any findings that would be essential to determine whether the MLLA in fact barred the claim.
For comparative fault analysis, Thibodeau conceded that his personal consumption of alcohol was negligent, but the jury concluded that Slaney's negligence was greater. The jury determined that Thibodeau's damages totaled $230,261.37. It also determined that Thibodeau's negligence justified a reduction of the da
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|