Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-11-09
FROM LAW COURT.
Rescript in Cumberland County Case Of
GreenIaw Versus Milliken.

Charles w. Jones, clerk of courts.
yesterday, received a rescript in the
Cumberland county case of Mary S.
Grcenlaw versus Mary w. Milliken.
The rescript drawn by Justice Strout,
is as follows:
On January rs. 1904. plaintiff slipped
uron the ice on the sidewalk In front of
the northeasterly corner of defendants
house and received injury. She claims
that the defendant wrongfully conduct
ed water upon the sidewalk, which
froze and rendered the walk dangerous.
Plaintiff had verdict. The case La
before the law court on motion to set
the verdict aside, and on exceptions.
Defendants house Is on the sUuthery
side Of the street, the front facing the
northeast. The ground has a rise from
the sidewalk to the rear line Of the
house of three feet and One-half inch.
and the flow of surface water from de-
fendant's premises is toward the side
walk. The water from the roof Of the
main house Is conducted into the sewer,
and does not reach the sidewalk. The
house has bay window four feet and
fOur-tanths one way and twelve feet
and siX-tenthS the other way. The
roof Of the bay window pitches each
way. half the drainage going south and
half north. At either end of the bay
window roof is a conductor with a one
inch opening. 1t is only the northerly
half Of the bay window roof that by
any possibility could discharge water to
reach the sidewalk at the place of IN
jury. From the front of the bay VIM
to .,,,t< Ln
sidewalk is seven feet and seven inches.
On the north end of the house drive
way led from the street to the stable in
the rear. From the stable TO the
street the ground descended. The
water from the northerly end of the
bay window was conducted through an
elbow of offset from the window to
perpendicular conductor. which termi-
mated in a wooden spout, having its
outlet upon the private walk from the
sidewalk. This elbow or offset in the
fall of 1903 had rusted out at the bot
tom, so that the water fell upon the
grass plot, and did not flow into the
conductor This conductor existed
during the entire winter.
At the time of the accident there was
about one foot of snow on the ground.
the sidewalk in front of the house was
icy, as were most of the sidewalks,
having northerly exposure. De-
PENDANTS house was unOccupied, and
had been for the whole winter, and no
fire had been in it.
If the ice upon the walk was the re-
suit of surface water naturally flowing
from the higher ground westerly, or
from melting snow which had fallen |
upon the walk, defendant would not be |
liable. To entitle plaintiff to a verdict
it was necessary for her to show that
the icy condition resulted from water !
artificially conducted to the walk. and !;
not from surface water naturally |
flowing there, or from melting snow |
which had fallen there. The evil !
dence failed to show this. 1t seems !
incredible that the small surface of |
one-half of the roof of that bay Win
dow could hold and discharge sufficient |
water that fell through that opening in !
the rusted out arm or offset upon the !
snow to permeate through one foot of |
Snow to the curbing, and then through,
under or over that to the sidewalk to
produce the icy condition. 1t is much
more probable that water flowed down ,
the driveway, not conducted from the |
DAY window, or from snow melted on
the sidewalk. and thus produce the icy |
condition. The jury apparently drew |
an inference not warranted by the evil
dence.
1t is also quite evident that the
plaintiff was not in the exercise of due |
care.
Motion sustained.
Verdict set aside.
Received Nov. 3. 1905.