 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dubail v. Department of Transportation5/28/1998
Reporter of Decisions
Submitted on Briefs: January 22, 1998
Richard and Georgia Dubail appeal from a summary judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Brennan, J.) on the Department of Transportation's motion in the Dubails' personal injury action. The Dubails contend that the court erred by determining as a matter of law that the DOT's alleged negligence did not occur "during the performance" of construction, street cleaning, or repair operations, within the meaning of 14 M.R.S.A. Section 8104-A(4)'s exception to governmental immunity pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. Sections 8101-8118 (1980 & Supp. 1997). We affirm the judgment.
I.
In March 1996 Richard and Georgia Dubail filed a complaint against the Department of Transportation alleging, inter alia, that in July 1994 Richard Dubail fell into a nearly five-foot deep hole while walking along the inside of a guardrail on Mallett Road in Freeport; that he was severely injured in the fall; and that his injuries were the result of the DOT's negligence. The complaint also alleged that Dubail's injuries "[arose] out of the performance of construction and repair operations." After filing a timely answer, the DOT moved for a summary judgment in which it asserted that it was immune from suit pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. Sections 8101-8118.
The DOT's motion for a summary judgment was supported by the deposition testimony of Ralph Williams, a DOT foreman, and Roger Gobeil, a DOT supervisor. Williams testified that he learned about the hole from his crew in 1989; that the hole was located inside the guardrail near a catch basin; that he had covered the hole with heavy exterior three-quarter inch plywood that was measured to fit tightly around the hole to prevent inadvertent removal; that he expected that the covering would last for ten to fifteen years, which would be "sufficient until the next major construction project came along"; and that he was unaware of any upcoming scheduled construction projects. Williams also testified that in the course of routine catch basin cleaning procedures, his crew cleaned the Mallett Drive catch basin annually from 1989 until 1994, when Dubail was injured. Both Williams and Gobeil testified that they were unaware of any construction, street cleaning, or repair operations being performed around the catch basin or hole in the weeks preceding and following Dubail's injury. Shortly after Dubail's fall, the DOT installed a metal covering on the hole.
The court concluded that the undisputed facts were insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the DOT's negligence occurred "during the performance" of construction, street cleaning, or repair operations. This appeal followed.
II.
The Dubails argue that a jury should have been permitted to infer from the undisputed facts that the DOT's alleged negligence occurred "during the performance of construction, street cleaning or repair operations," within the meaning of section 8104-A's exception to immunity, and that the court erred in deciding this issue as a matter of law. When reviewing a grant of a summary judgment, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonprevailing party to determine whether the record supports the Conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Petillo v. City of Portland, 657 A.2d 325, 326 (Me. 1995).
Pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. Sections 8101- 8118 (1980 & Supp. 1997), governmental entities are immune from suit on tort claims except in certain enu
Page 1 2 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|