Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-06-19
FROM law COURT
-
Two Decisions Handed
Down by Supreme Bench.
Verdict Set Aside, Snowflake vs..
United Box Board & Paper Co.
Motions and Exceptions 0verruIed in A. c.
hagert ct. al. rs. J. ?. Weber.


been received from the law court, the
verdict set aside and Il new trial order
ed in the case Of Snowflake VS.. United
Box Board & Paper Co. and motion and
exceptions overruled in the case of A.
Z. Hagerty ct. al. VS.. John p. Webber,
The rCScriptS:
Snowflake vs.. United Box Board &
Paper Co. Rescript by Whitehouse, ].
In this case the plaintiff recovered a
verdict of $3.50 for injuries sustained in
the defendants boiler room, Aug. %,
1906. by reason of the falling of guam
tity of brick from tho top of the brick
wall on the north side Of the building.
The case comes to this court on a mo-
ton to set aside the verdict as against
the law and the evidence.
The brick wall in question formed
the north side Of the defendants mill
at Fairfield.
The building was constructed in 1881,
and was originally provided with Il
wooden roof. but in 1898. the walls; were
raised about three feet to their present
height. the old roof removed and Il new
one of corrugated iron, with steel
frame, substituted Tor the wooden one.
The frame work of the new, roof was
composed of beams and rafters extend
ing over and across the building with
purlins or ribs running lcngthwise.
One of these steel purlins was laid in
the top Of the wall as a plate for the
support Of the ends Of the rafters, ard
it was so embedded in the brick ana
mortar, and the wall so built up under
the roof, that the top Of It came in con-
tact with the corrugated iron covering.
The, bricks were properly laid in ce-
ment mortar by skilled 1iborers. work.
ing under competent supervision, AMI
the wall when originally built had
every appearance of being a structure
of solid and enduring masonry. The OK
PLANTATION of the lOoscning and falling
of those brick which sees tc have been
accepted by both parties as the only
rational and probable one. J. was that
the steam in the boiler retn; condensed
and the. waterfall down On Che under
side of the if6n .rdutG the winter
time and tllng III edntaGt with the
steel purlitfSn the top III TIE wall.
worked its way into the brick work, :
ana that the action Of the frost was
then such az to heave the brick grad
ually. out of place, so that the slight
vibration resulting front the operation
of the carrier or the railroad car.
caused them to topple over.
The plaintiff sought to establish the
defendants liability on the ground of
negligence. He claimed that there was
breach of duty ~ the part of the de-
fendart in failing to exercise ordinary
care to provide a reasonably safe and
suitable place in wbteh, by the exer-
else of due care on His own part. he
could perform the service required of
him without liability to other injuries
than those resulting from simple and
unavoidable accidents. There was no
substantial controversy in relation to
material facts. 1t was the duty of the
jury. guided by the we'll settled rules
Of law applicable to the situation to
draw the appropriate inference from
essentially undisputcd facts. The cx-
istence of the relation of master and
servant between the parties did not i'm
rose upon tho defendant the obligation
to guarantee that the plaintiff would
never sustain any injury in discharginS
the duties of his employment. The de-
PENDANT did not undertake to insure
the plaintiff against all liability to ac-
cidcnt. The legal standard governing
the defendants duty was that of or
binary care with respect to the ext
gcncics of that situation. What precau-
tions and safeguards what degree of
vigilance and foresight would meet the
requirements of ordinary care. must
DO determined by reference to the con-
duct of ordinarily prudent and careful
men under like circumstances. In all
situations the degrees of care exercised
must be equal to the emergency.
When the conduct of the defendant
is examined in the light of the situa-
ton as it existed at that time. and
tested by the amount of care usually
bestowed by the ordinarily prudent
man, under the same circumstances
and conditions. unaided by the knowl-
edge which comes after the event. it Is
difficult to specify in what particular
there was Il failure of duty on the part
of the defendant towards this plain
tiff. In the original construction as
well as in the subsequent repair and
improvement Of the building, the de-
PENDANTS managers, acting under the
ordinary influence of the motives OF
self interest which stimulate men or
affairs to erect suitable end permanent
structures and avoid liability to the
payment of damages, appear to have
employed intelligent contractors ana
builders of large experience, under
whose supervision. the labor Of com2e-
tent ard skillful wOrkrnen was per-
formed. Those who built the mill as
well as those who subsequently raised
the walls and placed the iron roof up
on them. testify without reservation to
the thoroughness OF the entire work.
One Of the NEST experienced and COM
petent Of contractors ard builders in
the state, testified that with the knowl-
edge of steel roofs then possessed by
builders in this climate. the structure
twas as good as could be-" and all of
the expert builders who testified upon
this branch of the case declare in eff
feet that it never would have occurred
TO them that there would have been
sufficient water and frost or the top of
that wall in the boiler room to produce
the result found in this case Numerous
and familiar instances may be recalled
~ IL