Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1904-12-06

perfect sight and nearing, Is practlcaily
incapacitated from labor. The case was
tried at the last March term of court,
Occupying two days, and verdict was
, returned for the plaintiff for S2750.00,
one of the heaviest verdicts ever given
in damage suit in this county. The
rescript follows:
d. w. Babb VS.. Oxford Paper Co. Re-
| script by Savage, j.
The defendant operated coal con-
veyor, which consisted in part of an
endless chain of buckets which passed
up through the roof, over an ash hopper
on the roof, and then down through
openings in the roof and floors below.
The buckets sometimes carried ashes,
cinders and clinkers from the boiler
room to the roof, where they were auto
matically tripped and emptied their con-
tents into the ash hopper. The plain
tiff was servant of the defendant. He
was stationed on the first floor of the
building, and his duty was to watch the
descending line of buckets, to see that
they were right side up, and were clean
and free from cinders and clinkers. He
claims that while he was at his work,
standing within few inches of the de-
scendng buckets, with his head bent
slightly forward perhaps, he was hit by
piece of coal, or clinker, or frozen
ashes, which fell from the ash hopper
above, down through the openings in the
roof and the next floor above him, and
which struck him on the head with such
violence as to stun him and cause him to
fall in such way as to be injured.
1. In the original declaration the
only allegation of negligence was shat
the said ash box or receptacle became
filled and said defendant corporation
negligently and carelessly failed and
neglected to have said ash box or re-
ceptacle, so that the boxes or buckets
failed to properly unload in said ash box
or receptacle and ashes and clinkers were
carried out and over the edge Of said
ash box or receptacle, and fell through
the openings through which the said |
coal carrier descended" 1t is held that
an amendment setting forth in the new |
count "that the opening or aperture in
the second floor of the carrier room
building and the opening or aperture in
the roof of said building through which
the said coal conveyer descended was
larger than necessary for the passage of
said conveyer, and were dangerous,
hazardous and unsafe because of the
unguarded spaces thus left, all of which
dangerous, hazardous and unsafe condi-
tions were due to the carelessness and
negligence of the said defendant" did
was properly allowed.
2. Photographs, to be admissible as
evidence, should simply show conditions
existing at the time in question. When
taken with men in various assumed
postures, and things in various assumed
in order to illustrate the
claims and contentious of the parties,
they should not be admitted.
8. When one enters into the service
of another, by virtue of the employment,
he assumes the risk of all obvious and
apparent dangers which are incident to
the business, and of all which, one of his
age, capacity and experience, by the
exercise of reasonable care, ought to
know and appreciate; also of all dangers,
of which he knows, and which he should
whether obvious and visibly
or not.
4. The case shows that the plaintiff
knew and appreciated the likelihood
that ashes and clinkers would come
down from the hopper in the operation
of the coal conveyor; and though he
had notified his foreman of the danger,
and had been promised that it should be
he was apprised by falling
ashes, not five minutes before the acct
dent, that the hopper was again running
over. Nevertheless, knowing that the
hopper was full, and that material was
likely to come down, he did not exercise
reasonable care on.his own part, in the
presence of a known danger, in placing
himself in its track; and this was con-
tributory negligence, and bars recovery.
5. This conclusion, based entirely
upon the plaintiffs own testimony, is so
indisputable that the presiding justice
might properly have directed verdict
for the defendant.
Exceptions overruled.
Motion for a new trial sustained.