Canney v. Strathglass Holdings, LLC

Summary

Amy L. Canney appealed summary judgment for Strathglass Holdings, LLC, arising from injuries suffered by her son after being bitten by a dog kept by Strathglass’s on-call maintenance worker. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the worker was not acting within the scope of his employment because the incident occurred during private, recreational activity unrelated to his assigned duties. The court also affirmed summary judgment on direct negligence because Canney had not adequately pleaded or supported an independent negligence claim against Strathglass.

Holdings

1. Whether an employee acted within the scope of employment may be a question of fact or law depending on the evidence; because the material facts were undisputed and no additional facts needed to be explored, the issue was properly resolved as a question of law.
2. Burns was not acting within the scope of his employment when his dog bit Nicholai in Burns's private yard during an unrelated recreational visit.
3. Strathglass was entitled to summary judgment on Canney's direct-negligence theory because the complaint alleged only vicarious liability and the summary judgment record contained no evidence supporting a prima facie direct negligence claim against Strathglass.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could decide as a matter of law whether Burns was acting within the scope of his employment when the dog bite occurred.
2. Whether Burns was acting within the scope of his employment, such that Strathglass could be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
3. Whether Canney presented a prima facie case supporting direct negligence liability against Strathglass.

Disposition

affirmed