Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hamlin v. Motel

Superior Court of Maine, Cumberland

June 15, 2015

MICHAEL HAMLIN, Plaintiff
v.
MAINE MOTEL, et al., Defendants

ORDER

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

Before the court is defendant Maine Motel's motion to dismiss.

The standard applicable to a motion to dismiss is that

[f]or purposes of a motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted. The complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine if it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory. A claim shall only be dismissed when it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim.

In re Wage Payment Litigation, 2000 ME 162 ¶ 3, 759 A.2d 217.

In this case the rule that the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted works against plaintiff Michael Hamlin because many of the material allegations in the complaint, taken as admitted, undercut his claim against the Maine Motel.

Material Facts Alleged

Hamlin's complaint alleges that he was a paying guest at the motel for three weeks beginning January 25, 2015.[1] He alleges that near the end of his stay he introduced himself to another guest at the Motel, defendant Betsy Foster, and invited her in for drinks, at which time he learned she was engaging in prostitution. He alleges that the following day he saw a series of males enter Foster's motel room. One of those males was defendant Preston Cooper.

Hamlin's complaint further alleges that on February 13, while still paying for a room at the Motel, he was released from the Cumberland County Jail with a check for $2, 212.00. Because his license was under suspension, he called Foster for a ride back to the Motel. Hamlin's complaint alleges that he also asked Foster to give him a ride to TD Bank the following day and that after cashing the check at TD Bank, he returned to Foster's car, counted the money in her presence, and placed it in his wallet.

Hamlin's complaint alleges that later that evening there was a knock on his motel room door and he opened it, expecting it to be Foster. However, the person who entered was Cooper who, in collaboration with Foster, assaulted Hamlin and stole $ 580. See final paragraph of the "Background" section in the complaint and ¶ 2.

Hamlin further alleges that the Motel knew or should have known that Foster was engaging in prostitution at the Motel, which created an unsafe environment for other guests including plaintiff. Complaint 9.[2] He alleges that the assault and robbery against him was a direct and proximate result of the unsafe environment, Complaint ¶ 10, and that the Motel is responsible for the behavior of Foster and Cooper. Complaint ¶ 13-14.

Discussion

Absent a special relationship, persons have no legal duty to protect anyone from harm at the hands of third parties. Estate of Cilley v. Lane, 2009 ME 133 ¶ 17, 985 A.2d 481. However, innkeepers have been found to have a special relationship with their customers so that an innkeeper is required to exercise reasonable care to take such measures as are reasonably necessary to protect its customers from dangers, including intentional or negligent acts of third parties, that the innkeeper should reasonably anticipate. See Brewer v. Roosevelt Motor Lodge, 295 A.2d 647, 651 (Me. 1972). This is consistent with the duty of a landowner to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm caused by third persons. See Baker v. Mid Maine Medical Center, 499 A.2d 464, 469 (Me. 1985).

To the extent that Hamlin is alleging that the Motel should be strictly liable for the alleged actions of Foster and Cooper, Complaint ¶¶ 13-14, he is incorrect. The issue is whether the complaint adequately alleges that the Motel violated a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Hamlin from reasonably foreseeable harm at the hands of Foster and Cooper. Whether a duty exists requires an examination of whether the defendant is "under an obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff." Maravell v. R.J. Grondin & Sons, 2007 ME 1 ¶ 7, 914 A.2d 709; Trusiani v. Cumberland & York Distributors, Inc., 538 A.2d ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.