Robert L. Tolliver Jr., as sole guardian and conservator of Lucas E. Tolliver v. Department of Transportation

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the Maine Department of Transportation was not entitled to discretionary-function immunity for alleged negligence in implementing road-striping decisions during a highway construction project. The court also held that an expert road-construction witness lacked sufficient foundation to testify that the absence of an edge line substantially contributed to this particular accident. The judgment was vacated.

Holdings

1. MDOT was not entitled to discretionary-function immunity for the day-to-day implementation of its decision to stripe Route 302. The laying out, scheduling, and painting of the edge lines were ministerial operational acts within the road-construction waiver of the Maine Tort Claims Act.
2. The trial court erred by admitting Lavigne's opinion that the lack of an edge line was a substantial contributor to this particular accident.
3. Without Lavigne's inadmissible causation opinion, the evidence was insufficient to permit a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the lack of an edge line substantially contributed to the accident. MDOT was therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether MDOT was entitled to discretionary-function immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act for failing to timely stripe Route 302 and failing to use temporary edge-line markings.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Laurent Lavigne's expert opinion that the lack of an edge line was a substantial contributing factor in the accident.
3. Whether, excluding Lavigne's causation testimony, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that MDOT's failure to stripe the road was a proximate cause of the accident.
4. Whether the damages cap applied to MDOT's liability.

Disposition

vacated