Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-03-26
LAW COURT DECISIONS.

The following decisions have been re
ceived from the law court: p
Kennebec county-F'idclitv. & Ca suauy co
VS.. Cults Rescript by Whitehouse >.
1t is alleged in the plaintiffs writ and
agreed by counsel that the plate glass
was broken and destroyed by reason oi
the negligence of the defendant Whflef cen
gagged in making repairs for the owners
of the store But the case comes to the
court upon an agreed statement OF lac,s
in which It is stipulated that the break,
ing of said glass was purely accidental
and not Intentional There is no speci-
hcation of the facts and circumstances
connected with the breaking of the gass.
upon which the charge of negligence
against the defendant is founded. ARD
there is no evidence in the case tending
to show negligence on the part OF the de-
PENDANT. In the discussion of questions OF
liability for negligence, the term pure
accident or simple accident is uni
formly employed to indicate the absence
of any legal liability. 4.
Actionabie negligence may spring from
the careless performance of legal dutss
or from total neglect and disregard OF
such duty: but ii can never be CONSIST,
occurrence.
The entry must accordingly be judg-
ment for the defendant. sir
Knox county-Boardman AdmX, VS..
Creighton and another. ReScrlpt p9
Whitehousc, j. e.
Legally construed the plaintiff. S sdecla :
ration alleges in effect that the defepn-
ants operated d limestone quarry pN
means of Contractor Whitney, ana u con
tains no allegation that under tneir corr
tract with Whitney they rctalneas NuS ST
pervision or control over the quarry or
gave any directions respecting us oPcld
tons and management after WhilileH
took possession. The relation -of mas.el 81
and servant is not alleged to have existed
between the defendant and the interstate
but it is expressly stated that the m
servant :
There is no allegation that the audIl!
was in "A dangerous condition at the tiihy
the contractor took possession. anu Ia
suggestion that the work contemplate
was in any respect unlawful. or II prop
erly conducted that it would necessary !!
result in the injury complained o.. ~
the contrary II appears to be cialnleu ny
clear implication that IT was the cor
tractors careless method of operating
the quarry that caused the INJURY. -
The general allegations that II was iuC
duty of the defendants to provide suitable
implements. and a safe ana sultaple Pidre
to carry on the business. ana also 70 en- en-.
anime the walls and blufts OF tne dua ,,tf
from time to time serves onlI 70 std dt
conclusions of law whereas by the Settieo
rules of pleading the facts from VII, VIII,
the duty arises must be stated III oiut
that the court may see that the dutE Is
made out. ,.,.o :,
The general charge of negligence ~. n
permitting the contractor TO bIast ne
quarry unsafe is likewise insufhclen'
Actionable negligence arises from I hesled,
to perform a LEGAL duty. II me deltna
ants had no duty to perform with respec
to the contractors orpera1,o,ns viii, IN n tas'
lgence for emitting 70 interfere with me
contractors work, Upon the s t ,h.
averments in the declaration ana IN ll'
absence of the particular allegations spec
flied the operations in the quarry ar Hea lrpi,
which the injury resulted must Dc a trento,
the work of an independent contracto
who represented the will of the own" anl
only as to the result of the work am
not as to the manner of conducting II %
the means by which 1t is to be accom-
plished. -,
1t is accordingly the opinion OF IN
court that upon the material iacts SCI ou
in the declaration the defendants canho
he held liable for an injury to the ser
want of Contractor Whitney.
Exceptions sustained. Demurrer sts
tanned
Oliver VS.. Perry and others.
For the reasons given in the rescrlp
In Boardman VS.. Creighton. the entry Il
this case must also be,
Exceptions sustained. Demurrer sus
eained.