with whom ROBERTS, J., joins, dissenting.
Summary judgment is an extreme remedy that should be cautiously invoked. Aucella v. Town of Winslow, 583 A.2d 215, 216 (Me.1990). In this case, the Robinsons are entitled to summary judgment only if the facts conclusively preclude judgment for Maine Central Railroad, making judgment in favor of the Robinsons the only possible result. Id.
Because the conveyance to the predecessor of Maine Central Railroad did not expressly create an easement, any easement giving the Robinsons the right to cross railroad property would necessarily have been created by implication or estoppel, Frederick v. Consolidated Waste Servs., Inc., 573 A.2d 387, 389 (Me.1990), or through prescriptive use. See Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co. v. Daigle, 607 A.2d 533, 535 (Me.1992).
The Superior Court declared the railroad land to be subject to a quasi-easement, one of two types of implied easements. For such an easement to be created by implication, the “property when in single ownership [must have been] openly used in a manner constituting a ‘quasi-easement.’ ” Bowers v. Andrews, 557 A.2d 606, 608 (Me.1989). We have defined a qúasi-easement as
existing conditions in the land [conveyed] the continuance of which would be so clearly beneficial to the land [retained] that they would be presumed to be intended. These easements must be such as are apparent in the sense of being indicated by objects which are necessarily seen or would be ordinarily observable by persons familiar with the premises.
Id. at 608 n. 2 (quoting Brown v. Dickey, 106 Me. 97, 101, 75 A. 382, 384 (1909)) (emphasis added).
In this case, the easement claimed is in the nature of a railroad crossing. At the time of the conveyance, the railroad tracks did not exist. In my view, the court could not conclude, at least as a matter of law on the state of this record,1 that a quasi-easement in the nature of a railroad crossing or other road or path was “apparent in the *629sense of being indicated by objects which are necessarily seen or would be ordinarily observable by persons familiar with the premises.” Id.
I would vacate the summary judgment and remand for a determination of whether the railroad land is burdened by an easement benefitting the Robinsons, and the nature of any such easement.
. The Robinsons have not filed any affidavits as to the conditions existent on the land at the time of the severance in 1850.