From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chapman v. Rideout

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Jan 16, 1990
568 A.2d 829 (Me. 1990)

Summary

adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from In re Menna

Opinion

Submitted on Briefs January 2, 1990.

Decided January 16, 1990.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Penobscot County, Beaulieu, J.

Andrew Mead, Mitchell Stearns, Bangor, for plaintiffs.

Jerome B. Goldsmith, Linscott, Slater, Goldsmith Rair, Bangor, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, HORNBY and COLLINS, JJ.


Defendant Arthur Rideout appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Beaulieu, J.) entered in favor of plaintiffs Dale and Kristine Chapman. After a non-jury trial, the court awarded damages for negligent misrepresentation. On appeal, defendant argues that the tort of negligent misrepresentation has never been recognized in Maine and that therefore the trial justice erred in finding for plaintiffs on the issue of liability. We affirm the judgment.

The facts may be briefly summarized as follows: In 1985, defendant acquired a parcel of land in Holden. In 1986, he listed the property with a broker and marked the boundaries by fastening colored flags on trees. Defendant testified that he never had the land surveyed, but relied on a conversation with the previous owner in locating the boundaries of the property. In June of 1986, defendant conveyed the parcel to plaintiffs by warranty deed. Defendant testified that prior to closing he spoke with plaintiffs by telephone and indicated that the property lines were represented by the markers.

After acquiring the property plaintiffs cleared the land and installed a foundation and driveway within the area flagged by defendant. Plaintiffs then learned that defendant's markings were incorrect and that defendant had actually flagged a portion of the adjoining lot. As a result of this discovery, plaintiffs were required to install a more expensive septic system and also have another soil test performed. Additionally, plaintiffs purchased the adjoining lot in order to preserve their investment in the driveway and foundation.

After trial, the Superior Court entered judgment for plaintiffs, specifically finding that defendant's representations respecting the boundary markers constituted a negligent misrepresentation. The court awarded damages for the changes in the septic system and additional expenses relative to soil testing and closing costs. Defendant appeals.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines the tort of negligent misrepresentation as follows:

One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552(1) (1977) (emphasis added). We adopt the Restatement formulation as it applies to this case. Although scienter is traditionally required, we are persuaded that the Restatement reflects a well-reasoned exception to that requirement.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.


Summaries of

Chapman v. Rideout

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Jan 16, 1990
568 A.2d 829 (Me. 1990)

adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from In re Menna

adopting the formulation of the tort as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from Tetra Tech Constr. Inc. v. Summit Nat. Gas of Me. Inc.

adopting the Restatement formulation of negligent representation

Summary of this case from In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Security

adopting Restatement formulation of negligent misrepresentation

Summary of this case from Intl Paper Co. v. Androscoggin Energy

adopting Restatement which limits recovery for negligent misrepresentation to pecuniary loss.

Summary of this case from Metayer v. PFL Life Insurance Company

adopting the definition articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from Langevin v. Allstate Ins. Co.

adopting the formulation of the tort as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, P.C.

adopting section 552 of the restatement (second) OF torts

Summary of this case from Digital Fed. Credit Union v. Hannaford Bros. Co.

adopting the Restatement (Second)'s definition

Summary of this case from Carter v. Bartlett

adopting the formulation of the tort as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from Dube v. Maine-Ly Lakefront Props., LLC

adopting the formulation of the tort as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from Martin v. Ort

adopting section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts

Summary of this case from Oceanic Inn, Inc. v. Sloan's Cove, LLC

adopting the definition articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from Ross v. Ponte

adopting the definition of negligent misrepresentation stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552

Summary of this case from Fore, LLC v. Benoit

In Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829 (Me. 1990), the Maine Supreme Court found the defendant liable for negligent misrepresentation.

Summary of this case from Jordan-Milton Machinery, Inc. v. F/V Teresa Marie, II

In Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829, 830 (Me. 1990), the Law Court adopted § 552(1) of the Restatement (Second) Of Torts (1977) as the standard for claims of negligent misrepresentation.

Summary of this case from Gomes v. University of Maine System

referring to liability of someone "who supplies false information"

Summary of this case from Carolina Casualty Insurance Company V. Cummings Agency, Inc.

endorsing § 522 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts on negligent misrepresentation

Summary of this case from Carey v. Mt. Desert Island Hosp.

explaining that a misrepresentation will be actionable pursuant to a theory of negligent misrepresentation if the defendant “fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information”

Summary of this case from Drilling & Blasting Rock Specialists, Inc. v. Rheaume

setting out elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim, including justifiable reliance

Summary of this case from Berry Huff McDonald Milligan, Inc. v. McCallum
Case details for

Chapman v. Rideout

Case Details

Full title:Dale CHAPMAN, et al. v. Arthur RIDEOUT

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date published: Jan 16, 1990

Citations

568 A.2d 829 (Me. 1990)

Citing Cases

Veilleux v. National Broadcasting Co. Inc.

One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has…

Metayer v. PFL Life Insurance Company

The Court agrees. See Jourdain v. Dineen, 527 A.2d 1304, 1307 (Me. 1987) (claims of intentional…