impact rule in Maine

1992See Culbert v. Sampson’s Supermarkets, Inc., 444 A.2d 433 (Me.1982); Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc., 269 A.2d 117 (Me.1970).

1986The proposed test provided that in those cases where it is established by a fair preponderance of the evidence there is a proximate causal relationship between an act of negligence and reasonably foreseeable mental and emotional suffering by a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff, such proven damages are com-pensable even though there is no discern-able [sic] trauma from external causes. 269 A.2d at 121 .

2026Exclusion of Evidence of Threat by Adult Victim to a Third Person [¶60] Aldrich also argues that the court erred by excluding evidence that he was aware of a threat made by the adult victim to “another known associate.” “We review the trial court’s exclusion of evidence for clear error or abuse of discretion.” State v. Laferriere, 2008 ME 67, ¶ 3 , 945 A.2d 1235 . [¶61] Rule 404(b) does not prohibit all evidence of prior bad acts.

2026Exclusion of Evidence of Threat by Adult Victim to a Third Person [¶60] Aldrich also argues that the court erred by excluding evidence that he was aware of a threat made by the adult victim to “another known associate.” “We review the trial court’s exclusion of evidence for clear error or abuse of discretion.” State v. Laferriere, 2008 ME 67, ¶ 3 , 945 A.2d 1235 . [¶61] Rule 404(b) does not prohibit all evidence of prior bad acts.

2024Harmless Error Review [¶19] Our harmless error review varies depending on the nature of the error. “[T]here are two types of trial errors: (1) those that are structural, in which prejudice is presumed, triggering vacatur; and (2) those that are nonstructural, triggering an analysis as to the impact of the error in that specific case.” State v. White, 2022 ME 54, ¶ 32 , 285 A.3d 262 .

2024Harmless Error Review [¶19] Our harmless error review varies depending on the nature of the error. “[T]here are two types of trial errors: (1) those that are structural, in which prejudice is presumed, triggering vacatur; and (2) those that are nonstructural, triggering an analysis as to the impact of the error in that specific case.” State v. White, 2022 ME 54, ¶ 32 , 285 A.3d 262 .

2019We need not attempt to gauge the impact of this instruction, however, given that we vacate the judgment for a different reason. 11 [the] defense was focused in large part on the application of the statutory justifications” that were the subject of the erroneous instructions); State v. Baker, 2015 ME 39, ¶ 22 , 114 A.3d 214 (concluding that an instructional error constituted obvious error where the instruction at issue related to an issue that was “central to the case”). [¶16] Contrary to the State’s argument, our decision in Fox does not control the result here.

2019We need not attempt to gauge the impact of this instruction, however, given that we vacate the judgment for a different reason. 11 [the] defense was focused in large part on the application of the statutory justifications” that were the subject of the erroneous instructions); State v. Baker, 2015 ME 39, ¶ 22 , 114 A.3d 214 (concluding that an instructional error constituted obvious error where the instruction at issue related to an issue that was “central to the case”). [¶16] Contrary to the State’s argument, our decision in Fox does not control the result here.

1995Although we reaffirm the principle that an insured is generally held accountable for the actions of the insurer which cause an entry of a default against the insured, see, e.g., Boit v. Brookstone Co., 641 A.2d 864 (Me.1994); Firth v. City of Rockland, 580 A.2d 694 (Me.1990), the conscientiousness of the insured in seeking a timely response to a lawsuit can mitigate the impact of this principle in a default situation.

1995Although we reaffirm the principle that an insured is generally held accountable for the actions of the insurer which cause an entry of a default against the insured, see, e.g., Boit v. Brookstone Co., 641 A.2d 864 (Me.1994); Firth v. City of Rockland, 580 A.2d 694 (Me.1990), the conscientiousness of the insured in seeking a timely response to a lawsuit can mitigate the impact of this principle in a default situation.

1992Rejecting both the impact rule and the zone-of-danger rule, we adopted the foreseeability test enunciated in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal.2d 728 , 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 (1968), and held that a plaintiffs psychic injury would be deemed foreseeable, and thus compensable, when the plaintiff i) was present at the scene of the accident, ii) suffered serious mental distress as a result of observing the accident, and iii) was closely related to the victim.

1992Rejecting both the impact rule and the zone-of-danger rule, we adopted the foreseeability test enunciated in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal.2d 728 , 69 Cal.Rptr. 72 , 441 P.2d 912 (1968), and held that a plaintiffs psychic injury would be deemed foreseeable, and thus compensable, when the plaintiff i) was present at the scene of the accident, ii) suffered serious mental distress as a result of observing the accident, and iii) was closely related to the victim.

1982Co., 120 Me. 138 , 113 A. 16 (1921).

1982Co., 120 Me. 138 , 113 A. 16 (1921).