The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1905-10-27
HE NEWS. PROVIDENCE. r.. l.. FRIDAY. OCTOBER 81. 1905.
OUTLET co.
ASKS FOR
new TRIAL

Defendants petition for a new trial I'm
the suit brought by Maria Garberg
against Joseph Samuels. ct al. was argued
In the Supreme court today. Plaintiff on
Nov. 2, 1898, slipped in the marble vesti-
bule of the Outlet store and had her arm
broken. \ jury found the defendants
guilty Of negligence and awarded the
plaintiff $3.50.
In her declaration the PLAINTIFF alleged
negligence in having n vcstibule OF an
improper and unsafe character I'm that II
required a person to step down a smooth
sloping surface, and also I'm not warning
the plaintiff OF the risk of slipping at this
place.
On behalf Of the defendants II is
claimed the testimony failed to show that
they were guilty of negligence, that the
pIalhtlf was guilty OF c~ontributory negli-
gence I'm not looking over the ground she
was 10 traverse as any trouble such as
might arise from a smooth floor would be
perfectly obvious.
other claims upon which Il is asked are
that the court below erred i'm permitting
the witness. Crooker, TO testify as 10 his
opinion OF whether or not the construc-
tloh OF the entrance was proper and be
cause the damages awarded are excessive.
Herbert A. Blake, counsel for the plain
I'M, argued that the verdict OF the Jury
was correct, that there was no error i'm
the admission OF the testimony Of the ex-
pert. Croker, and that as at the time of
the trial, ~ months after the accident.
the plaintiff had not fully recovered from
the effects OF her injury, the damages
awarded were not excessive. Vincent.
Boss a. Barneheld and A. l.. Churchill
are counsel for the defendants.
The case. as presented TO the court to-
day, was decidedly suggestive OF the gold
and silver shield. Mr.. Barneheld made an
argument that the chief justice took oc-
casion to say was strong. on the ground
or the entrance being OF ordinary con
structlon. Mr. Blake promptly chal-
lenged the courts attention by saving
that the counsel for the defendant wished
10 have the court take the place or the
jury and decide what was properly within
the province OF the jury to decide. He
went over the main points OF the case.
showing clearly that the plaintiff did not
ask for such a construction of the law
as would make IL necessary 10 recon-
struct a large number OF buildings I'm this
city, as the counsel for the defendants
maintained. but simply that the fair de-
cision Of a jury that had reviewed the
premises should stand.
Mr.. Blake called attention 10 the fact
that a trial judge. who was an able
lawyer. had refused a non-suit on the
ground advanced here that there was no
evIdence or negffgenCe ON the part of
tho plaintiff. Attention was further
called to the very clear charge OF the
same Judge.
In his argument counsel for defendants
had referred 10 the lower floor OF the
court house. in which he was arguing,
being like this entrance to the Outlet, as
being mosaic marble and not slippery or
dangerous. While Directing to the In
PRODUCTION or such a statement, Mr.. Blake
said he had the same right 20 call the
courts attention TO the fact that the
outlet had since made the entrance safe
by the placing Of a rubber nat beneath
the step.
IL was intimated that the court. II IL
found the defendants guilty OF negligence,
would not disturb the damages awarded.