Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-10-10
Androscoeein County.

susie A. Radcliffe vs. City of Lewiston
Rescript, King, j.
Action to recover damages for per-
sonal injuries, alleged 10 nave been
the south side of the North Bridge con-
Meeting Lewiston and Auburn, which
sidewalk the city Of Lewiston was
hound to maintain and keep in repair
The Jury returned verdict OF $500 for
the plaintiff and the case is before the
law court on defendants motion and ex-
ceptions.
The defendants contentious under its
motion, as stated in the brief OF its
counsel, may be thus summarized; that
there was no such defect In the side
walk as claimed by the plaintiff; that If
there was any such defect the defendant
did not have actual notice thereof az
least twenty-four hours before the accl-
dent as required by statute: that II
such defect existed the PLAINTIFF had
knowledge of it, and was guilty OF con-
tributory negligence and finally that the
plaintiff was not injured TO the extsn.
Claimed, and that the damages awarded
are excessive. ift 3T
t. The alleged defect was a hole be-
tween two planks of the sidewalk into
was thereby thrown upon the walk. in
her examination the. plaintiff EXPRESSED
her Judgment of the size OF The hole bS
who was walking with the plaintiff at
the time of theHaccident described the
hole as large enough for woman
heel to 90 dOWn INTO IL tdSilNs-H SSpu
sized heeiLtiAt Is the hole itself " Ben
iamn s. Young, who assisted in getting
the plaintiff into team and taking her
home after the accident. gave ms Judg-
ment of the size of the hole as six IN
ches long and three or four inches
wide
In behalf OF the defendant Mr.. Ryan.
superintendent of public works Of Lew
jston. TESTIFIED that he measured the
hole and il vas .-soant two inches in the
widest place, and 10 inches long. Hiram
T. Spencer who put patch over the hole
after the accident under the direction
of Mr.. Ryan, gave the size of tue mole
as about an inch and seven-eighths, the
widest place" Cornelius c. Cronin and
lie works commission of Lewiston, called
by defendant testified respectively that
the size of the hole in its widest part
was two inches" agd 'seant two m
1t was for the jury to ascertain from
the evidence as to the size and location
of the hole, and then to determine II 1t
was a defect in the sidewalk. This qnes-
ton was submitted TO them with clear
and explicit instructions. Their decIs-
ion was that the hole was defect IN
the sidewalk, and in the opinion OF the
court that decision was justified BIZ the
evidence
. AS to the "a hours actual notice of
the defect before the accident.
Upon this branch of the ease the
issues were, whether Hiram Z. spencer
was authorized to act as substitute for
the road commissioner of Lewiston with,
in the meaning of the statute, and
whether Spencer had "a hours actual no.
tiee of the alleged defect.
ii was a question of fact for the jury
whether Mr.. Spencer was authorized by
Mr.. Ryan to act as substitute for him
in inspecting and Keeping in repair the
sidewalk in question And We thing the
evidence fully justified the jury IN deeid-
ing this question in the plaintiffs favor
Again, il WAS for the jury TO determine
whether spencer had the a hours actual
notice of the hole in the sidewalk, Il
was not claimed that any one notified
him of the hole, but the plaintiff con-
tended that Spencer must have seen tie
hole, since II was shown by three or four
witnesses that the hole had existed for
three or four weeks, and had been OBJ
served by them as they walked along the
sidewalk and that Mr.. Spencer had in
spected the sidewalk twice week during
all that time.
This issue of notice YVES submitted to
the jury with pertinent instructions, in
which they We're told that it was not
enough for them TO find that Spencer
might have seen the hole by the exercise
of reasonable care, but that the jury
must be satisfied by the evidence that he
did see it. We think the jurys finding
upon this issue must stand. IL was a
question for them to decide whether
Spencer Gid see the hole, and we find
nothing to indicate that they misunder-
stood that question:.
?. we find nothing in the evidence
sufficient TO sustain the contention taar
the frlaintif knew os the existence % isie
hole in the sidewalk before her accident
She says she had no Previous knowledge
Of X, and that she had NOT passed over
toe sidewalk very frequently, md Gid
rot refifember when she had heen over
ft before in the daytime 1t appears
that at the time of the accident she was
walking as usual, and there is nothing
10 Indicate that she was not in the eN-
erciSe of reasonable care.
A. The plaintiff is shown to have re-
ceived a violent fall. No bones were
broken, but she sustained a seS ere aer-
vous shock. She claimed that ~ the
time of the trial. nine months after the
accident. she was still suffering pain as
the result OF her injuries. that she was
unable to do even her work about the
house. and was stu under the doctors
care After an examination and con-
sideration of all the evidence relating
To the nature and extent of the plain
tits Injuries We do not feel that the
damages awarded by the Jury are so
manifestly excessive that new trial
should be granted.
5. The defendants exceptions are not
particularly urged in argument But the
court finds no ground on which they
could be sustained. The instructions
complained of We're appropriate and I'M
Objectionable.
Motion and exceptions overruIed