Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-18
Somerset County.
Harry r. Wyman VS.. American Shoe
Finding Company. Rescript, Bird, ].

| Harry r. Wyman vs.. American Shoe
Finding Company. Rescript, Bird, j.
Tho plaintiff seeks to recover dam
| ages for injuries sustained by him
while employed as he alleges by de-
PENDANT corporation in securing in po
sitior a mast or gin pole erected by
defendant. The verdict was for PLAIN
tiff and defendant filed G general mo-
ton for a new trial.
The charge of the presiding justice is
not reported. 1t to be assumed. there
fore, that proper instructions were Civ
| en-.
Defendant urges that the plaintiff
| was a mere volunteer but upon the evil
Gcncc We see n" reason to disturb the
verdict on that ground.
On the day preceding the accident
the defendant had erected Il mast or
gin pole. stopping it into hole.
about two feet deep III the frozen
ground and holding it in position by
means of three guys or lines which
were securely attached to proper an
chorages. The guys. for convenience.
may De referred to as northerly, easter
lv aid southcrly. The anchorages were
located respectively in separate thirds
of the circumference of the circle of
which the bottom of the pole was the
center The pole was thus stable if the
suyS did not break or slip. The tackle
and fail b. which the pole was raised
were left in position and the fall was
drawn taut and secured at Il point
| northwesterly of the mast.
On the morning Of the accident, af-
| i,oI 10
taut. the plaintiff who hal all eXpe-
rience Of several years in the erection
and climbing OF poles for electrical pur-
poses. was directed by the supcrintend-
ent of the defendant TO climb the mast
and substitute for one of the guys an
tother OF greater size. This he did. but
| the evidence is contradictory as to
whether this guy was placed over or
| under the other two guys. He then
again assembled the mast and. the fall
Having been Embossed. carried the
block which had been left attached to
the mast the night before, some dis
lance upwards ard there secured it to
| the mast. Upon the evidence, the jury
would be warranted in finding that the
other end of the tackle and fall was
net again made fast to the anchorage.
| Attention was then called to the fact
that the pin ordinarily put through
the top of gin pole to keep the guys
from slipping was not in place. Plain
tiff states that he thereupon assembled
the mast with pin, but could find no
hole in which to place it and dropped
If TO the ground. Defendant produced
evidence tending to prove that plain
tiff refused to take the pin when Oh
fered him. saying that it was unneces-
sary. Plaintiff again assembled the pole
with a light hand line with which to
draw m a line to be attached to the
ton Of the mast as fourth guy which
lit was intended to anchor at point
| westerly or northwesterly of the mast.
| While engaged in this work and be-
fore the guy was made fast at the low
or end. the mast toppled and fell and
severe injuries to plaintiff resulted.
It is difficult, at first at least. to I'M
derstand how the accident could have
Ihappened. The plaintiff himself is I'M
able to explain it. We think. however,
unon the evidence that when the fall
was cast off from it's anchorage it al
lowed the mast to settle towards the
east or southeast and partially removed
the STRAIN upon ttle oliiei So! "A'u q"
lowed them to become somewhat slack
thus permitting the southerly guy.
which was lowest on mast, to slip and
as the mast swung the breaking OF the
northerly guy from contact with some
object, permitted the mast to fall to the
ground.
} In the first count of the declaration,
the negligence of defendant is stated to
consist in not having the guy line from
1.-THE top of the mast to the corner of the
factory fastened and in not planting
1.-THE mast in the ground to a greater
depth than two or three feet, OF which