Facts
- Jennifer Lane and Joshua Cilley had an on-and-off romantic relationship; the day before the incident Lane told Cilley they should “take some time off.”
- On January 31, 2005, Lane had been drinking with neighbors and returned to her trailer to make a phone call.
- Cilley arrived at Lane’s trailer and entered; Lane told him to leave, but he refused and initially prevented her from exiting.
- After a dispute involving a small-caliber rifle (its origin in the trailer was disputed), Lane left the trailer and heard a loud “pop.”
- Lane looked back and saw Cilley falling; she later told police she thought he had “pretended” to shoot himself.
- Lane went to a nearby trailer and told neighbors what happened but did not check Cilley’s condition or call 911 herself.
- Neighbors went to Lane’s trailer, saw Cilley partially outside and deteriorating, and called 911.
- Cilley died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the abdomen; medical evidence indicated he likely could have been resuscitated if he arrived at the hospital 5–10 minutes earlier.
- The Estate alleged Lane’s negligent delay in obtaining emergency assistance caused or contributed to Cilley’s death.
Issues
- Whether Lane owed Cilley a duty of care under premises-liability principles, including whether Cilley was a social guest or a trespasser once told to leave.
- Whether Maine common law should recognize an affirmative duty to seek emergency assistance for a person who suffers a self-inflicted injury, absent a special relationship or risk creation by the defendant.
Decision
- The Law Court affirmed summary judgment for Lane.
- The court held that once Cilley refused Lane’s demand that he leave, he was a trespasser, limiting Lane’s duty to refraining from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.
- Lane’s failure to immediately check on Cilley or call for help did not amount to willful, wanton, or reckless conduct on the summary judgment record.
- The court declined to adopt a new common-law duty requiring a bystander to seek emergency assistance absent a special relationship or the defendant’s creation of the danger.
- Because no duty recognized by Maine tort law applied, the negligence claim failed regardless of evidence that earlier medical treatment might have prevented death.
Legal Principles
- Negligence liability requires a legally recognized duty; without duty, foreseeability and causation do not create liability.
- Maine follows the general rule that there is no affirmative duty to aid, warn, or rescue another person absent (1) creation of the risk by the defendant or (2) a legally recognized special relationship.
- A person who remains on property after being told to leave may be treated as a trespasser, to whom the land possessor generally owes only a duty to avoid willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct.
- Courts may decline to create new affirmative rescue duties based on policy concerns about imposing broad, indeterminate liability and because such expansions are commonly left to legislative action.
Conclusion
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that Lane owed no duty to seek emergency assistance for Cilley’s self-inflicted injury because she neither created the risk nor had a special relationship imposing an affirmative duty, and Cilley’s refusal to leave placed him in trespasser status that did not expand Lane’s obligations beyond avoiding willful or reckless misconduct.