Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Citation
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Maine (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-07-10
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
Full Text
674 chars*474[¶ 10] The Superior Court granted the summary judgment motions of Morton & Furbish and the Carons on all counts. The court reasoned that no duty was owed to Benham because of the rule that “a landlord is not liable for injuries caused by defective conditions in areas that are within the exclusive possession and control of the lessee.” The court also found that no duty was owed to a tenant or guest of a tenant with regard to the design of the stairs. The court concluded that summary judgment was warranted as to the warranty claim because there was no evidence of an express warranty, and consequential damages are precluded for a breach of warranty of habitability.