Estate of Cilley v. Lane

Maine Supreme Judicial Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyPremises liabilityNo duty to rescueduty of careno duty to rescueaffirmative duty to aid

Facts

After Lane told Cilley to leave her trailer, he refused and initially blocked her attempt to exit, making him no longer welcome in the home. As Lane walked out of the trailer, she heard a loud pop, looked back, and saw Cilley fall; she heard him say that it was an accident and was not supposed to happen. Lane did not investigate or assess whether he was injured and instead went to a friend's trailer and said that Cilley had pretended to shoot himself. Her friends then observed Cilley in distress, called 911, and Cilley later died from a gunshot wound; a treating physician stated he could have been resuscitated if he had reached the hospital five to ten minutes earlier.

Issue

Did Lane owe Cilley a duty to seek emergency assistance after he shot himself in her trailer? More specifically, did such a duty arise because Cilley was allegedly a social guest, or should the court recognize a new common law duty requiring a person who witnesses another's injury to contact emergency assistance through reasonable means?

Rule

In Maine, a person generally has no affirmative duty to aid or warn another in peril unless the person created the danger or the parties had a special relationship recognized by law as sufficient to create that duty. A person who remains on land after being told to leave is a trespasser, and a landowner's duty to a trespasser is limited to refraining from wanton, willful, or reckless conduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a street fair in Portland, Maine, Nina Ortiz saw a stranger, Caleb Dunn, collapse after accidentally cutting his leg on broken glass from another vendor’s display. Nina had not caused the accident and did not know Caleb. Instead of calling 911, she walked away, and another bystander called several minutes later.

If Caleb sues Nina for negligence based solely on her failure to summon medical help, what is the strongest argument for Nina?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a person generally has no affirmative duty to aid or warn another in peril unless the person created the danger or the parties had a recognized special relationship. Merely witnessing an injury does not itself create such a duty, and the court declined to recognize a new common-law duty to call for aid based only on being present. (Derived from Estate of Cilley v. Lane (n.d.).)