Poulin v. Colby College
402 A.2d 846, 1979 Me. LEXIS 568 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner or occupier of land owes a single duty of reasonable care in all circumstances to all persons lawfully on the land, thereby abolishing the common law distinctions between invitees and licensees.
Facts:
- On January 3, 1973, Francis Poulin accepted a ride to work with Mr. and Mrs. Tulley.
- The plan was to drop Mrs. Tulley, an employee of Colby College, at the college campus before Mr. Tulley and Poulin proceeded to their own workplace.
- Upon arriving at Colby College, Mr. Tulley's car was unable to ascend an icy hill in front of the dormitory where Mrs. Tulley worked.
- Poulin exited the car and helped Mrs. Tulley walk up the icy shoulder of the roadway to the dormitory steps.
- After ensuring Mrs. Tulley was safely at the dormitory, Poulin attempted to re-cross the icy road.
- Poulin fell and slid down the hill, incurring injuries that led to the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Francis Poulin was awarded damages by a jury in the Superior Court, Kennebec County, after a three-day trial for injuries sustained in a fall.
- Prior to trial, Colby College (defendant) unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment.
- During trial, Colby College moved for a directed verdict, which was denied.
- Following the verdict, Colby College moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial; both motions were denied.
- Colby College, as the appellant, appealed the denial of its post-verdict motions to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should a landowner's duty of care to persons lawfully on their land be determined by the common law distinctions between invitees and licensees, or by a unitary standard of reasonable care?
Opinions:
Majority - Pomeroy, Justice
No, a landowner's duty of care to persons lawfully on their land should not be determined by the common law distinctions between invitees and licensees, but rather by a unitary standard of reasonable care in all circumstances. The Court acknowledged that the jury initially found Poulin to be an invitee, which would traditionally mean Colby College owed him a duty of reasonable care. However, the Court determined that the common law distinctions between invitees and licensees are increasingly minute, confusing, and outdated. Citing cases from other jurisdictions like Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, Mounsey v. Ellard, and Rowland v. Christian, the Court noted that these distinctions originated in a feudal, land-centered culture and are ill-suited for a modern urban, industrialized society. The Court found no justification for denying an injured plaintiff recovery simply because they were a licensee rather than an invitee, especially when the burden on the landowner to exercise reasonable care is often the same for both categories. Therefore, the Court formally abolished the distinction between invitees and licensees, establishing a single duty of reasonable care for all persons lawfully on the land. This holding was limited to the present case and injuries occurring on or after January 3, 1973. The Court also affirmed the jury's finding of no comparative negligence on Poulin's part, noting it was foreseeable he would assist Mrs. Tulley in dangerous conditions, and that the question of his exact movement on the road was appropriately resolved by the jury. Lastly, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the mistrial motion related to a juror's acquaintance with witnesses, nor reversible error in the admission of expert testimony regarding weather conditions.
Analysis:
This case significantly simplifies premises liability law in Maine by eliminating the archaic common law distinctions between invitees and licensees. By adopting a unitary standard of reasonable care for all lawful visitors, the court aligns Maine with a growing number of jurisdictions, reducing confusion and promoting a more equitable application of negligence principles. This ruling shifts the focus from the visitor's legal status to the landowner's conduct and the foreseeability of harm, potentially increasing landowner responsibility for maintaining safe premises for a broader class of visitors.
