Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-12-30
Androscoaqin County.

samuel French VS.. Maine Central Rail-
aoau 60. Rescript, per curiam. (No
Action to. recover compensation for
persona! injuries sustained by the plain
III Whlie unloading coal from the de-
Iendants car. Verdict for s2912 The
verdict as being against the evidence,
ana also because the damages are excess
Sive.
The plaintiff was an employee of the
consiSnee to which the car of coal was
delivered by the defendant for unloading.
me car was an open coal car. with its
sides divided into sections of about S
feet IN length and with iron posts or
stanchlons between. Each section con-
sisted of two parts or doors, one above
the other. hinged to the same iron rod
half of the section could be turned down
over the lower half. and the lower door
Te boom ef Up a the upper
in place when down by pins. The upper
door was held UP in. place against the
posts by means of clutches. secured to
the posts. which hooked or clutched over
the top edge of the door at each end.
The clutch at one end was double, that
is. SO constructed that when the lower
it's, edge would be clutched by the outer
end of the double clutch and thereby held
up. Drawing the edge of the lower door
under the end of the double clutch lifted
its hold on the upper door until the edge
of the lower door came into it's place
or notch in the double clutch The single
door held it in place while the lower one
To open the lower door. of the section
was fastened to the bottom of the lower
door and. after the pins We're removed,
workman on top of the car Of coal. by
it's edge into the double clutch.
AS the plaintiff. standing upon the top
of the load Of coal near the edge - the the
double clutch both doors suddenly turn
ed down. and he was precipitated to the
bottom of the coal pit. receiving sh the EN- IN
dent was the absence of the single
clutch
The plaintiff alleged and claimed, as
the ground for MS aGtG o.; d that t the
car for unloading with the single clutch
gone. The defendant contended chien!
that the absence of the single clutGh. wa :.
an obvious defect. which the plaintiff,
would have observed if he had exercised
reasonable care, and hence that he was
chargeabe with contributory negligence
sideration of all the evidence it is the
opinion of the court that the jury We're
authorized in finding that the defendat'
was negligent. and that the plalntlft W .;.t
in the exercise of reasonable care. But
it is also the opinion of the court mat
the damages awarded by the jury are eX-
cessive in view of the nature ana extent
of the plaintiffs injuries as disclosed IN
the evidence. , .
If the plaintiff will remit all of the yer
dict above $500 within 80 days after tne
receipt of this rescript by the clerk th1
motion for "A new trial is to be oVerruleu
otherwise the motion will be sustained
and the verdict set aside.
Ordered accordingly.
f.. p. Langley ct al in equity VS.. LOUIS
r. Chabot ct ais. Rescript, per curlam
In an equity case the decision OF IN.
sitting Justice upon matters or Iac'
should not be reversed on appeal unie -
it appears that such decision Is manltesdd55
" wrong. Hartley VS.. Richardson, VI
Maine. p. 42s. and cases cited
In the case at bar no questions or la"
were in dispute. and all the issues o.. o.
fact were found by a jury in favor of TIE
plaintiffs. Thereafter upon hearing, the
Sitting Justice, in confirmation OF IN
jurv's findings, decided all matters or
FACT in the plaintiffs favor, and mace
his decree accordingly. 1t is the opinion
Of the court that the decision of the SIT
ting Justice is justified by the evioehc
and should be affirmed with costs IN.
Decree Of sitting justice affirmed Will