"[T}he plain meaning of this statute requires that both the negligence and the bodily injury must arise out of and occur during construction, street cleaning or repairs."
How later courts described this case
- "[T}he plain meaning of this statute requires that both the negligence and the bodily injury must arise out of and occur during construction, street cleaning or repairs."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
(
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
Docket No. CV-2018-525
)
JOSHUA BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
V. ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT MAINE
) TURNPIKE AUTHORITY'S BILL OF
NORTRAX, INC., CODY CRAIG, ) COSTS
and MAINE TURNPIKE )
AUTHORITY, )
)
Defendants. )
Before the Court is Defendant Maine Turnpike Authority's ("MTA") Bill of Costs.
For the following reasons, the Court awards costs totaling $4,454.10 to MTA.
I. Background
This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the vicinity of
Exit 48 of the Maine Turnpike on January 20, 2017 ("the Accident"). (J.S.U.F. 'l['l[ 1, 3.)
Plaintiff Joshua Brown filed this suit for personal injuries he sustained in the Accident. In
Count III of his Complaint, Mr. Brown alleged that MTA "improperly set up signage and
warnings of construction," leading to the Accident. (Compl. 'l['l[ 12-13.) Defendants Cody
Craig and Nortrax, Inc. (collectively, the "Nortrax Defendants") brought a crossclaim
against MT A for indemnity and/ or contribution.
MTA moved for summary judgment on the basis that it is immune from suit under
the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. §§ 8101-8118 ("MTCA"), which bars Mr. Brown's
claim and the Nortrax Defendants' crossclaim. On March 29, 2022, the Court entered
summary judgment in favor of MTA on the issue of its immunity from suit. On April 8,
2022, MTA submitted its Bill of Costs pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 1502-D and M.R. Civ. P.
Page 1 of 7
( (
54(d), which Mr. Brown and the Nortrax Defendants have opposed. MTA requests that
the Court award the following costs:
Filing fees
Motion for summary judgment $225.00
Deposition Costs
John Cannell
4/30/19 Deposition Transcript $323.70
Joshua Brown
6/14/19 Deposition Transcript $226.55
Cody Craig
8/22/19 Deposition Transcript $249.00
8/15/19 Deposition Transcript $345.85
John Cannell and William Thompson
8/12/19 Deposition Transcript $384.00
Jeffrel Nadeau
9 27 /19 Deposition Transcript $199.50
8/17/21 Deposition Transcript and Court
Reporter Appearance Fee $290.05
Dr. Stephen Bamberger
10 / 12/20 Deposition Transcript $222.90
Brian Taddeo
8 / 13 /21 Deposition Transcript and Court
Reporter Appearance Fee $330.00
Ralph Norwood
9 I 7 / 21 Deposition Transcript $217.50
11 / 18 / 21 Deposition Transcript $357.50
Richard McAllister
Deposition Preparation Expert Fees $1583.24
10/22/21 Deposition Transcript $277.55
William Howerton
11/16/2021 Deposition Transcript and
Court Reporter Appearance Fee $805.00
Page 2 of7
(
MTA supports its Bill of Costs with documentation of each requested cost, as well as the
affidavit of Attorney Stouder.
II. Legal Standard
M.R. Civ. P. 54(d) provides: "Costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing
party, as provided by statute and by these rules, unless the court otherwise specifically
directs." "In order to determine who has prevailed, the trial court 'must look at the
lawsuit as a whole to determine which party was the winner and which the loser."' Landis
v. Hannaford Bros., 2000 ME 111, 'l[ 6, 754 A.2d 958 (quoting Dodge v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 417 A.2d 969, 975 (Me. 1980)) (quotation marks omitted). Pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §
1502-D, the prevailing party must submit a bill of costs "not later than 10 days after entry
of judgment."
Regarding allowable deposition costs, M.R. Civ. P. 54(g) provides:
The taxing of costs in the taking of depositions shall be subject to the
discretion of the court. No costs shall be allowed unless the court finds that
the taking of the deposition was reasonably necessary, whether or not the
deposition was actually used at trial. Taxable costs may include the cost of
service of subpoena upon the deponent, the reasonable fee of the officer
before whom the deposition is taken, the stenographer's reasonable fee for
attendance, and the cost of the original transcript and one copy of the
testimony or such part thereof as the court may fix and, for depositions used
at trial in lieu of live testimony, a reasonable fee for appearance by any
expert and costs incident to preparing, editing and presenting the
deposition at trial.
Pursuant to 16 M.R.S. § 251, the Court may also allow costs for an expert witness's
attendance at trial. However, costs for an expert witness's attendance at a deposition or
any proceeding other than a trial are not allowable. Landis, 2000 ME 111, 'l[ 13, 754 A.2d
958 ("[T]he cost of an expert witness for attending a deposition is not allowable."); Oliver
v. E. Me. Med. Ctr., 2018 ME 123, 'l[ 44, 193 A.3d 157 (holding that the Superior Court did
not err by denying the prevailing party's request for an award of expert witness costs
generated by a prelitigation panel proceeding).
Page3 of 7
( (
III. Discussion
Mr. Brown and the Nortrax Defendants raise three issues concerning MIA's Bill
of Costs. First, they argue that MTA has submitted its Bill prematurely. Second, they
argue that certain costs sought by MT A are not allowable. Finally, they dispute whether
and how the Court should apportion costs among them. The Court will address each
issue in turn.
A. Timeliness
Mr. Brown contends that MIA has brought its Bill of Costs prematurely because
MTA is not yet a "prevailing party." Because Mr. Brown's claims against the Nortrax
Defendants remain pending, he asserts that the Court's entry of summary judgment in
MTA's favor is not a final judgment. Mr. Brown argues that MTA cannot be a prevailing
party if the Court has not yet entered final judgment.
This argument is unavailing. Neither Rule 54( d) nor 14 M.R.S. § 1502-D specifically
limit their application to a final judgment. Moreover, MIA is clearly a prevailing party
at this juncture because the Court entered summary judgment in MTA's favor on the
issue of its immunity under the MICA, which bars the only claim and crossclaim against
it. Cf Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35 v. R., 321 F.3d 9, 16 (1st Cir. 2003) (stating that a
defendant who wins "a clear-cut victory on the sole issue" may qualify as a "prevailing
party" for the purpose of an attorney's fees award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 even in
absence of final judgment).
B. Allowable Costs
The fee for filing MTA's Motion for Summary Judgment is, of course, recoverable.
See 14 M.R.S. § 1502-B(l). In its discretion, the Court may also allow appropriate
deposition costs. Mr. Brown and the Nortrax Defendants oppose: (1) transcript costs for
Page 4of 7
I (
depositions taken by parties other than MTA, and (2) costs associated with deposition
preparation by Richard McCa!lister, MTA's expert witness.
As set out above, MTA seeks its costs of obtaining copies of the transcripts from
thirteen depositions. Because Rule 54(g) commits to the Court's discretion "the taxing of
costs in the taking of depositions," the Nortrax Defendants contend that MTA is not
entitled to costs associated with depositions that it did not take. This is an overly narrow
reading of the rule. Reading Rule 54(g) in conjunction with Rule 54(d), which broadly
provides that"[c]osts shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party," it is apparent
that "costs in the taking of depositions" are not limited to costs of depositions noticed or
taken by the prevailing party. See M.R. Civ. P. 54(g) Advisory Committee's Note to 1975
amend., Dec. 1975 (" As a practical matter, in most cases the attorney for either party,
whether or not he is taking the deposition, needs to have a copy of the transcript in order
adequately to prepare for trial."); Packard v. Cent. Me. Power Co., CV-80-453, 1984 Me.
Super. LEXIS 157, at *8-10 (Sept. 20, 1984) (allowing costs of copies of all depositions and
other costs associated with depositions initiated by the defendant).
Obtaining a copy of all deposition transcripts was reasonably necessary for
preparing MTA's motion for summary judgment. Neither party disputes, and the Court
finds, that the depositions taken by MTA-Mr. Craig; Dr. Bamberger, Mr. Brown's
medical expert; and William Howerton, the Nortrax Defendants' liability expert-were
reasonably necessary. The Court will allow the costs of one copy of each deposition
transcript and reasonable court reporter appearance fees incurred by MTA.
However, the Court cannot allow the cost of MTA's expert witness's preparation
for his deposition because the deposition was not used at trial in lieu of live testimony.
See M.R. Civ. P. 54(g); Landis, 2000 ME 111, 'l[ 13, 754 A.2d 958. Accordingly, costs are
awarded as follows:
PageS of 7
Filing fees $225.00
Deposition Costs $4229.10
Total $4454.10
C. Apportionment of Costs
Mr. Brown argues that the Nortrax Defendants should "bear the brunt" of any
costs awarded to MTA because the Nortrax Defendants noticed most of the depositions
and took more cumulative testimony than Mr. Brown. The Nortrax Defendants argue
that any costs should be allocated "equally."
By obtaining summary judgment in its favor, MTA simultaneously prevailed
against Mr. Brown's claim and the Nortrax Defendants' crossclaim. Although the Nortrax
Defendants may have driven up MTA's costs, Mr. Brown initiated this action. Moreover,
Mr. Brown does not claim that financial hardship justifies reducing his liability for MTA' s
costs. See 14 M.R.S. § 1502-D. Accordingly, Mr. Brown, Mr. Craig, and Nortrax, Inc. are
jointly and severally liable for the entirety of the costs awarded to MTA. See Suero-Algarin
v. Caguas, No. 1:14-cv-01508-SCC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130397, at *7-8 (D.P.R. July 13,
2021) ("Joint and several liability for costs is the general rule unless equity otherwise
dictates."); Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 309 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir. 2002) (same);
In re Paoli R. Yard PCB Litig., 221 F3d. 449, 469 (3d Cir. 2000) ("We read the sparse case
law surrounding this issue as placing the burden on the losing parties to introduce
evidence and persuade the court that costs should be apportioned, and in the event that
they fail to do so, the default rule is that costs may be imposed jointly and severally.").
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court awards MTA $225.00 for filing fees and
$4,229.10 for its deposition costs. The Court disallows MTA's costs of its expert witness's
preparation for deposition because the deposition was not used at trial.
Page 6 of 7
i
\ (
The entry is:
Maine Turnpike Authority's Bill of Costs ALLOWED IN PART as set forth
above. MIA is awarded costs of $4,454.10, for which Plaintiff Joshua Brown
and Defendants Cody Craig and Nortrax, Inc. are jointly and severally liable.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference
pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).
Dated: _ _L,e;{+/----"'8,,_/-'J"'-'-"D""bl:..:J,...__
I I
Plaintiff-Sheldon Tepler, Esq.
Defendant Nortrax and Craig-Martha Gaythwaite Esq
Defendant MTA-Elizabeth Stouder, Esq. ' ·
REC'D GUMB CLERKS OF,
JUN 10 '22 AH8:14
Entered on the Docket: 06 /ii/21__
'(iAC/
Page 7 of 7
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
Docket No. CV-2018-525
)
JOSHUA BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT MAINE
) TURNPIKE AUTHORITY'S
NORTRAX, INC., CODY CRAIG, ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
and MAINE TURNPIKE ) JUDGMENT
AUTHORITY, )
)
Defendants. )
)
Before the Court is Defendant Maine Turnpike Authority's ("MTA") Motion for
Summary Judgment. The motion is opposed by Plaintiff Joshua Brown and Defendants
Nortrax, Inc. ("Nortrax") and Cody Craig (Nortrax and Mr. Craig collectively, "the
Nortrax Defendants"). For the following reasons, the Court grants MTA's motion.
I. Facts
The following facts are drawn from the parties' Joint Stipulation of Undisputed
Facts and the parties' statements of material facts. Denials and qualifications are noted
when relevant.
This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the vicinity of
Exit 48 of the Maine Turnpike ("the Turnpike") on January 20, 2017 ("the Accident").
(J.S.U.F. CJ['[ 1, 3.) On the day of the Accident, an independent contractor, CLT, was
working adjacent to the Turnpike in the vicinity of Exit 48. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. <J[<[ 26, 30,
Page 1 of 8
32.)1 Specifically, CLT was clearing trees within a hundred feet of the center line of the
Turnpike. (Def. MfA's S.M.F. <JI 27.) The right lane and acceleration lane had to be closed
to allow the movement of equipment to and from the site. (Nortrax Defs.' Add. S.M.F. <JI
16.)2 Accordingly, MT A employees had set up a lane closure on the northbound side of
the Turnpike, in the vicinity of Exit 48, earlier that morning. (J.S.U.F. <JI 2.) MTA's work at
the site consisted of placing appropriate signs, cones, and a truck-mounted attenuator on
the Turnpike, and directing traffic. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. <JI<JI 33, 36-37.)3
The purposes of CLT's work were to remove obstructions from the "clear zone"
next to the Turnpike and allow more sunlight to reach the road, which increases visibility
of animals near the roadway and decreases the amount of salt needed. (Def. MT A's S.M.F.
<JI 31.) Additionally, the tree clearing was the first stage in a project to widen the Turnpike.
(Nortrax Defs.' Add. S.M.F. <JI 5.)
Shortly before the Accident, Mr. Brown was driving in the right lane on the
Turnpike. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. <JI 7.)4 He moved to the left lane after seeing traffic cones
and signs warning drivers of the lane closure. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. <JI 8.) Once in the left
lane, a car in front of Mr. Brown's car stopped, so Mr. Brown stopped. (Def. MT A's S.M.F.
9.) He was stopped for about twenty to thirty seconds. (Nortrax Defs.' Add. S.M.F. <JI 8.)
In his mirror, he saw a truck approaching from behind. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. <JI 10.) To
1 Mr. Brown denies paragraphs 25-32 of MTA's Statements of Material Fact. However, the record citations
provided do not contain evidence refuting the statements of material fact. Accordingly, each of those facts
is deemed admitted. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4).
2 In the same statement of material fact, the Nortrax Defendants also stated that the lane needed to be closed
to allow removal of trees and brush from the project. However, this portion of the statement was not
properly supported by the cited portions of the record.
3 Mr. Brown responds to paragraphs 36-44 of MTA's Statements of Material Fact with qualifications that
are unsupported by citation to the record. Accordingly, each of those facts is deemed admitted by Mr.
Brown. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4).
4 Mr. Brown responds to paragraphs 6-24 of MTA' s Statements of Material Fact with qualifications that are
nnsupported by citation to the record. Accordingly, each of those facts is deemed admitted by Mr. Brown.
M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4).
Page 2 of 8
avoid collision, Mr. Brown steered his vehicle to the right, but the truck driver also
steered to the right and collided with the rear of Mr. Brown's vehicle. (Def. MTA's S.M.F.
<]I<]I 15-16.) The driver of the truck was Mr. Craig, and the owner of the truck was Mr.
Craig's employer, Nortrax. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. C[<]I 18-19.)
When the Accident occurred, MTA employees were in the process of taking down
the lane closure. (J.S.U.F. <j[ 3.) CLT swept the roadway clean. (Nortrax Defs.' Add. S.M.F.
<j[C[ 17-18; MTA's Resp. Nortrax Defs.' Add. S.M.F. <JI 18.)5 An MTA employee drove an
MTA vehicle in reverse in the closed right lane, picking up cones. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. <]I
38.) At the time of the Accident, the MTA truck was in the right lane (which was still
closed), and the MTA attenuator vehicle was on the right shoulder. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. <[
39.) Mr. Craig did not hit either of the MTA vehicles in the right lane before he hit Mr.
Brown's vehicle. (Def. MTA's S.M.F. C[42.)
Two employees of MT A testified that they had no reason to disagree with
characterizing the area in which the Accident occurred as an "active work zone," and a Ii; ~
construction and engineering expert retained by the Nortrax Defendants testified that, in
11
his opinion, the Accident happened in an "active construction zone." (Pl.'s Add. S.M.F.
<j[<]I 1-2.) "I
11
.
Mr. Brown filed this suit for personal injuries he sustained as a result of the
t;
Accident. In Count III of his Complaint, Mr. Brown alleges that MTA "improperly set up I
i
l
signage and warnings of construction," leading to the Accident. (Compl. C[<j[ 12-13.) The )!
Nortrax Defendants filed a cross-claim against MTA for contribution and/ or
i'
5Although the Nortrax Defendants' statements of material fact specify that brush was being removed by
the sweeping equipment, the cited portion of the record does not state what was being swept from the lane.
As qualified by MTA and as reflected in the cited portion of the record, CLT operated the sweeping
equipment.
Page 3 of 8
indemnification. MTA moves for summary judgment on the grounds that it is immune
from suit under the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. §§ 8101-8118 ("the MTCA").
II. Legal Standard
A party is entitled to summary judgment when review of the parties' statements
of material facts and the record to which the statements refer demonstrates that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact in dispute, and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, <j[
14, 951 A.2d 821. A contested fact is material if it could potentially affect the outcome of
the case. Dyer, 2008 ME 106, <j[ 14, 951 A.2d 821. A genuine issue of material fact exists if
the claimed fact would require a factfinder to "choose between competing versions of the
truth." Id. (quoting Farrington's Owners' Ass'n v. Conway Lake Resorts, Inc., 2005 ME 93, <j[
9,878 A.2d 504). The evidence offered in support of a genuine issue of material fact "need
not be persuasive at that stage, but the evidence must be sufficient to allow a fact-finder
to make a factual determination without speculating." 6 Est. of Smith v. Cumberland County,
2013 ME 13, <Jr 19, 60 A.3d 759.
When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the evidence
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Dyer, 2008 ME 106, <j[ 14, 951 A.2d
821. To survive a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must establish a prima fade
case for each element of his or her claims. Tri-Town Marine, Inc. v. J.C. Milliken Agency,
Inc., 2007 ME 67, <j[ 7, 924 A.2d 1066. "Summary judgment is appropriate when a
defendant is immune from tort liability." Day's Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 2016
ME 121, <JI 7, 145 A.3d 1030 (quoting Grossman v. Richards, 1999 ME 9, <j[ 3, 722 A.2d 371).
6 Each party's statements must include a reference to the record where "facts as would be admissible in
evidence" may be found. M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). A party's opposing statement of material facts "must explicitly
admit, deny or qualify facts by reference to each numbered paragraph, and a denial or qualification must
be supported by a record citation." Stanley v. Hancock Cnty. Comm'r, 2004 ME 157, 113, 864 A.2d 169.
Page 4 of 8
III. Discussion
"The MTCA expressly provides that, as a general rule, governmental entities are
immune from suit on any and all tort claims seeking recovery of damages." Klein v. Univ.
ofMe. Sys., 2022 ME 17, <]I 8, _ A.3d _ ; see 14 M.R.S. § 8103(1). The MTCA does provide
for limited exceptions to immunity, which the Law Court has described as "a cautious
waiver of sovereign immunity by the Legislature in certain carefully circumscribed
circumstances." Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 2010 ME 89, <]I 27, 3 A.3d 390; see 14 M.R.S. §
8104-A. Courts must construe exceptions "strictly in order to adhere to the Legislature's
directive that immunity for a governmental entity remains the general rule." Klein, 2022
ME 17, <]I 8, _ A.3d ___; see Est. ofFortier v. City of Lewiston, 2010 ME 50, <_[ 8, 997 A.2d 84
("In construing section 8104-A, we recognize that the MTCA employs an exception-to
immunity approach rather than an exception-to-liability approach." (quotation marks
omitted)).
As a governmental entity, MTA is immune from suit on any and all tort claims
seeking recovery of damages unless an exception applies. The only exception at issue
here is 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(4), which reads in pertinent part:
A governmental entity is liable for its negligent acts or omissions arising
out of and occurring during the performance of construction, street
cleaning or repair operations on any highway, town way, sidewalk, parking
area, causeway, bridge, airport runway or taxiway, including
appurtenances necessary for the control of those ways including, but not
limited to, street signs, traffic lights, parking meters and guardrails.
The Nortrax Defendants and Mr. Brown argue that the exception is applicable because
MTA negligently posted improper signage of the lane closure and (1) tree clearing is
"construction" or "repair operations," or (2) the sweeping of the roadway in preparation
for reopening the right lane was ''street cleaning."
A. Tree Clearing
Page 5 of 8
The MTCA does not define "construction" or "repair." Accordingly, the terms
"must be given their plain and natural meaning and should be construed according to
their natural import in common and approved usage." Goodine v. State, 468 A.2d 1002,
1004 (Me. 1983).
The Law Court has not interpreted "construction" or "repair" in the context of
section 8104-A(4). Interpreting an insurance contract, the Law Court has said that
"repair" is commonly understood to mean "to restore to sound condition after damage
or injury." Hall v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2002 ME 110, 91 7, 801 A.2d 993. Clearing trees from
within one hundred feet of the centerline of the Turnpike allows more sunlight to reach
the road, which increases visibility of animals near the roadway and decreases the
amount of salt needed. Plainly, the work did not "repair" any damaged element of the
Turnpike.
Nor did the tree clearing constitute "construction." Black's Law Dictionary (11th
ed. 2019) defines "construction" as: "The act of building by combining or arranging parts
or elements; the thing so built." As the Nortrax Defendants argue, later stages of the
project to widen the Turnpike are likely to involve "construction." However, the only
stage of the project relevant to this matter is the stage in which MT A's negligent acts or
omissions allegedly occurred. See Rivard v. Lewiston, 516 A.2d 555,556 (Me. 1986) ("[T}he
plain meaning of this statute requires that both the negligence and the bodily injury must
arise out of and occur during construction, street cleaning or repairs.").
At the time of the Accident, MTA controlled traffic and maintained a lane closure
while CLT cleared trees. The work did not involve "building," "combining," or
Page 6 of 8
"arranging." It was not "construction." 7 See Bethanis v. Inhabitants of Readfield, Nos. CV
98-193 & CV-98-284, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 143, at *4 Oune 27, 2000) ("This court
concludes that if the Law Court did not afford application of the exception in Goodine and
King [v. Town of Monmouth, 1997 ME 151, 697 A.2d 8371, it is not likely that they would
apply it to a case involving tree trimming, albeit within the Town's right of way and for
the safety of those using the Town roads.").
B. Sweeping
The Law Court has defined "street cleaning" as follows: "The term 'street cleaning'
is commonly understood to mean the removal of debris which is generated by pedestrian
and vehicle traffic at all times of the year." Goodine, 468 A.2d at 1004 (discussing similar
language of 14 M.R.S. § 8104(4) (1980), a previous version of section 8104-A(4)).
At some point before the Accident, CLT swept the right lane in preparation for its
reopening. The parties' statements of material fact and cited portions of the record do not
identify the material being swept. However, regardless of the material swept, MTA' s
alleged negligence in posting signs of the lane closure cannot reasonably be said to have
arisen out of CLT's sweeping of the lane. It is undisputed that the right lane was closed
to allow for movement of equipment to and from the work site-not for street cleaning
purposes. Because MTA's negligent acts must have "aris[en] out of and occur[ed] during"
street cleaning for liability to attach, CLT's sweeping of the lane does not bring MTA's
acts with the exception of section 8104-A(4). See Rivard, 516 A.2d at 556.
7 Mr. Brown places much weight on the fact that two MIA employees and an engineer agreed that the area
in which the Accident occurred could be characterized as a "work zone" or "construction zone." However,
the common meaning of the terms must guide the Court's interpretation, not the opinion of a select few.
Page 7 of 8
A strict construction of the MTCA' s exceptions to immunity, which the Court must
employ, does not encompass the work being performed at the time of the Accident. Thus,
MTA is immune from suit.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, no dispute of material fact exists, and the undisputed
facts demonstrate that MTA is immune from suit on Mr. Brown's claims. Accordingly,
MTA is entitled to summary judgment.
The entry is:
Defendant Maine Turnpike Authority's Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order and Judgment into the docket by
reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).
I
Dated: d)flJCh
Ma G y Kennedy, Justice
( Mpine; uperior Court
L/ ,/
Page 8 of 8