## Facts

- Kathleen Benham stayed at a Rangeley, Maine cottage for a two-week family vacation; the cottage was owned by Aline and Rheal Caron and was arranged through Morton & Furbish Agency.
- The agency substituted the Caron cottage after double-booking a different property; the renters selected the Caron cottage from options presented by the agency.
- The cottage was also listed for sale, and the owners allowed rentals only if the agency could continue to show the cottage to prospective buyers during the rental period.
- The attic was excluded from renter access because the owners stored personal items there; the agency could unlock the attic trapdoor to show the attic to buyers.
- The agency provided or arranged services and items associated with transient lodging, including linens, toiletries and household items, trash removal (and winter snow removal), and cleaning after checkout.
- The attic was accessed by a trapdoor and steep stairs/ladder built by Rheal Caron; the ladder lacked guardrails or handrails.
- Upon arrival, the family found the attic trapdoor open; Benham climbed the stairs and fell while descending, sustaining injuries.
- Benham sued the owners and the agency for negligence (dangerous condition/defective design and maintenance) and breach of the warranty of habitability.

## Issues

1. Whether the two-week vacation occupancy created a landlord–tenant relationship (lease) or a license to use the premises.
2. Whether summary judgment for the owners and rental agency was proper where the trial court applied landlord–tenant doctrine limiting duties for defects in areas under the occupant’s exclusive possession and control.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated summary judgment for all defendants and remanded.
- The court held the arrangement was a license to use the premises, not a traditional landlord–tenant lease.
- Because the trial court’s duty analysis rested on the incorrect landlord–tenant characterization, the summary judgment could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- In a traditional landlord–tenant relationship, a landlord is generally not liable for injuries caused by defective conditions in areas in the tenant’s exclusive possession and control, subject to recognized exceptions.
- A lease transfers an estate in land and generally confers exclusive possession for a term; a license grants permission to use property without transferring an estate.
- When the occupancy is a license, liability is assessed under general premises-liability principles rather than landlord–tenant doctrine.
- Short-term, transient vacation arrangements, especially where the owner/agent retains access and provides lodging-type services, may be classified as licenses.
- The occupant’s status and the extent of retained control affect duty analysis; misclassification of the relationship can invalidate a summary-judgment ruling that turns on duty.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a two-week vacation cottage arrangement, marked by transient use, retained access for showings (including restricted areas), and lodging-type services, constituted a license rather than a lease; therefore, the trial court’s landlord–tenant no-duty analysis was erroneous and summary judgment was vacated for further proceedings under the proper premises-liability framework.


Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (Me. 2007)