Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-10-05
sJuesmemr=sea~esfsspAsT.
k6s 1sEss'ss' 'r5s~;sSs Eelssss-ccr;srs
York County CASE

i The salaw court, Tuessoork county
down a reseript in tlsyiar a,If1sN vs
lease of Philomen E1s]@s, ,i,.,n.y s,,,,.,
/ York Manufactur'~s 'N1.S
Inent for the sefendant Inc fescrlpt
lie 1ra,,,, -. associate Justice Arno w.
| King of ellsworth. IN TINS case death
~ Re husband of the plaintiff Charles
| FOoufnier, was caused by an cleo
trio shock, resulting from hitting his
head against fuse box attached to
the ceiling of the power house of the
defendant corporation The case is an
action of tort and the rescript decides
that the plaintiff did not show that
ner late husband was in the exercise
of due care when the accident oc-
CURED. Tie text of the rescript is as
follows:
Philomen Fourier. admx. VS. York
manufacturing Co. Rescript King. j.
Action of tort, by the Administrative
of the estate, and widow, of Charles
Fournier, under the provisions of
Chapter 25S, Laws of 1909. To recover,
damages for the death of the plain
tiff'S interstate while he was employed
in the defendants power house. al
legged to have been caused by the de-
PENDANTS negligence in not warning
him of a danger incident TO the place
where he was directed to work The
ease is before this court on report.
l. There is no direct and positive
evidence Of the cause of Fournier's
death, but the plaintiff contends that /
can be reasonably ana logically infer
red from all the evidence that his death
was caused By an electric shock re-
sulting from 4 contact of the top of
his head with fuse box attached
10 the ceiling of the power house
.. Assuming that inference in the
PLAINTIFFS favor, still the burden was
on the plaintiff to show affirmatlvely,
either directly or by legitimate infer
#ence, that Fournier did not by his own
fault contribute to the accident which
caused his death.
9. The case is clearly distinguishes
bic from those where a plaintiff is in
iured while merely passive in the care
of the defendant, without any active
agency on his own part in the matter.
or, where n laborer, rightfully in his
place in the performance of his duty.
is negligently injured by some extra
|neous interference not reasonably to
be anticipated in the exercise of the
care TO De expected OF pfuueTl men In
Hike situations, or where he has an as
surance. express or implied, that he
will receive timely warning of any
such interference. In this case Four
nier was not passive in the case OF the |
defendant but active. Tt was his act
that produced the contact with the
fuse box. if there was a contact, and
therefore it should affirmatively appear
that in doing that act ne was not neg
Iigent but in the exercise of due care.
4. No person who saw the accident
itself has testified how it happened
/ that Fournier came in contact, if he
did, with the fuse box. Whether he
was reasonably attentive and alert to
avoid such a contact, or, in a moment
of thougEtless inattention, by some
careless move came against it. does not
tappear in evidence. The burden was
ION the plaintiff 10 show that her inte-
state was in the exercise of duo care
and did not negliSently contribute to
1.-THE injury which caused his death.
This III the opinion of the court. she
has failed 10 do. and in accordance
with the stipulation of the report the
tentry must be
Judgment for defendant.