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
601 chars[¶ 24] Accordingly, we conclude that Blevins had a license to use the Caron cottage. Benham was the guest of Blevins, and a duty of reasonable care was owed to Benham. See Pelletier, 662 A.2d at 221-22. Because we conclude that there was a duty of reasonable care, we do not address whether there is a dispute of a material fact about the existence of exclusive possession and control of the premises. Additionally, because the issue was not reached by the Superior Court, we do not address the Carons’ contention that Morton & Furbish acted outside the scope of the agency relationship. The entry is: