The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1907-09-26
Verdict Sustained.

The law court, Thursday, handed
down a rescript in the Somerset
county case of Walter Roundy versus
the United Box, Board and Paper
Company of Fairfield, overruling the
motion Of the defendant for new
trial.
The rescript drawn by Justice Pea
body is as follows:
This was an action brought by the
plaintiff to recover damages sustained
while employed by the defendant
company In its pulp mill. The YER
dict was for 1925 and the case is be-
fore the Law Court on the defend
ants general motion for new trial.
At the time of the accident the re-
lation of master and servant existed
between the parties.
The question OF coptributory negli-
gence on the part of the plaintiff
though not waived is not urged in
defense. The issues are negligence
of the defendant in its legal duty to
it's servant and the amount of GAM
ages.
The defendant was making repairs
in the basement of its mill and work
men were engaged in taking down
concrete piers py the use OF drills and
wedges, and dumping the pieces into
a hole and leveling up. The adjoin-
ing space was used as a pump room,
having a wooden floor made of two
inch plank where the plaintiff and
other employees had occasion to pass
day and night in looking after the
pump and its gearing.
In the afternoon Of the day before
the accident, the repairing crew. in
charge of the foreman, detached d
fragment of one Of the piers three
feet by two feet in size, weighing
three or four hundred pounds. 1t
caught against the shaft end the fore
man directed that 1t be pried off, and
it dropped over into the pump room.
1t made hole in the floor near where
the ladder was usually put up for ad =
iusting the belt ON the shaft pulley.
1t was held suspended by each end
and was left there when the work
men quit work In the afternoon.
Between this time and the time OF
the accident at three O'Clock at night
this piece of stone fell through the
floor to the ledge below leaving a
hole about it's size and of the depth of
from five to ten or twelve feet. The
attention of the plaintiff having been
called to the fact that the belt was of,
he went to the usual place for setting
the ladder leaving his lantern ten or
twelve feet away.
In attempting to put up the ladder
he fell into the hole and was injured.
He had no knowledge of it's existence
or of the fact that fragment OF stone
had fallen on that side of the pier,
and the hole in the dim light was not
plainly discernible.
The condition was not such as
would be reasonably anticipated by
him and the jury were justified In
finding that no lack of due care on
the part of the plaintiff contributed
to his injury.
The defendant relies upon the COM
mon knowledge of men as to the sus-
tanning strength of plank two inches
In thickness as a just basis for the
Judgment of the defendants agents
that the floor would sustain the
weight of this rock until 1t was re-
moved, but the foreman knew that 1t
had fallen from the height Of eight
feet and had broken partially through
the plank, that the fibers of the wood
had been crushed and weakened by
the impact to an extent not possible to
be known except by examination or
the event of its fall. He allowed it to
remain where it fell without any safe
guard to warn or protect workmen
whose duties required them to be
frequently at this place.
He was the representative of the
defendant company and 1t was there
fore charged with the responsibility
of anticipating the consequences to
the plaintiff by exposing him to the
increased danger Of the weakened
flooring and of falling into the hole
this stone had made. The defendant,
therefore, must be held liable not for
negligence presumed by the princi-
pie of res ipsa loquita, but for neg
ligence in fact proved by the evid-
ence.
A careful review of the case does
not show that the judgment of the
jury as to the amount of damages
should be set aside as manlfestly ex-
cessive.