Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-09-20
FROM LAW COURT.
Denial of New Trial for Defendant In
Somerset Case.

The law court, Thursday. handed
GoWn Il rcScript in the SomerSet county
case of Walter Ruundy versus the
United Box, Board and Paper Com
Fany, ovclruling the motion or the
defendant for Il new trial.
The rcscript 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 COM
pany in it's pulp mill. The verdict
was for $4,000 and the case is before
the Law Court on the defendants gen
cral motion for Il new trial.
At the time of the accident the rela-
ton Of master and servant existed be-
tween the parties.
The question of contributory negli-
gence on the part OF the plalntllt
though not waived is not urged in de-
Tense. The issues are negligence of
the defendant in its legal duty to its
servant and the amount of damages.
The defendant was making repairs
in the Basement of its mill and work.
men We're engaged in taking down
concrete piers by the use of drills and
wedges, and dumping the pieces into a
hole and lcVelinS up The adjoining
space was used as the pump room
having a wooden floor made OF two
inch plank where the plaintiff and 9TH
er 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, i'll
charge Of the foreman, detached a
fragment of one of the peirS three feet
| by two feet in size, weighing three Or
four hundred pounds. 1t caught
against the shaft and the foreman di-
rcctcd that it be pried off. and ii
dropped over into the pump room. II
made Il hole in the floor near where
the ladder was usually put up for adj
juSting the belt on the shaft pulley. 1t
was held suspended by each end and
was l,ft there when the Workmen quit
work in the afternoon.
| Between this time and the time OF
| the accident al three O'Clock at night
| this piece Of stone fell through the
| floor to the ledge below leaving a hole
| about its size and of the depth OF
| from five to ten or twelve feet. Tn,
attention Of the plaintiff having beer
| called to the fact that the belt was off
he went to the usual place for setting
the ladder leaving his lantern ten o.
twelve feet away.
| In attempting to put up the ladder
he fell into the hole and was injured
lie had no knowledge of it's existenc,
| or Of TIE fact that a fragment of stone
| had fallen on that side of the pier, ant
the hole in the dim light was no
| plainly disccrnble.
| The condition was not such as would
be reasonably anticipated by him ant
| the jury were justified in finding tina
| no lack of due care on the part of tn,
plaintiff contributed to his injury
| The defendant relies upon the com
| mon knowledge of men as to the SuS
tanning strength of plank two inchc
in thickness as a just basis for tn
| Judgment of the defendants agents
| that the floor would sustain the weigh
of this rock until it was removed, Blu
the foreman knew that it had fallcl
| from the height of eight feet and haC
broken partially through the plank
that the tibcrs of the wood had becl
| crushed and weakened by the impac
to an extent not possible to be known
| except by examination or the event o
it's fall. He allowed it to remain wher
it fcll without any safeguard to war;
or protect Workmen whose duties re
| quircd them to be frequently at thi
/ place.
He was the representative of the de
fcndant company and it was therefor,
| charged with the responsibility o
anticipating the consequences to tn,
| plaintiff by exposing him to the in
| creased danger of the weakened floor
ing and of falling into the hole thi.
| stone had made. The defendant
| therefore. must be held liable not fo
| negligence presumed by the principle
of res ipsa loquita. but for ncgligcnc,
in fact proved by the evidence.
| \ careful review of the case does no
| show that the judgment Of the jury a.
to the amount of damages should b
set aside as manifnstly excessive.
| Motion oVcrruled.