The Republican journal., 1921-11-17
New Trial in Collemer-Player
Case.

A special from Augusta under date of
Nov. 9th gives the rescript in one of
Waldo County's most interesting cases:
Augusta, Nov. 8.
The Law Court Tuesday handed down
rescript in the Waldo county case of
Ralph M. Collemer VS.. Preston Player,
sustaining the motion of the defendant,
setting aside the verdict and granting a
new trial
The Rescript Per Curiam is as follows:
Action to recover damages for personal
injuries suffered through alleged negli-
gence of defendant. The plaintiff was
employed by defendant during the fall
and winter of 19l7-1918 as caretaker on
Mark Island, owned by defendant, off
the coast of Maine about three miles
from Dark Harbor. On the twenty. first
day of January, 1918, he returned to the
Island from Dark Harbor in motor boat
during cold, stormy afternoon. For
hauling up the boat beyond danger from
the sea, the defendant had provided
substantially constructed railway on
which ran car or cradle; this cradle
was heavily weighted with stone that it
might be run down the railway into the
water beneath the boat; both were then
hauled upon the railway to a place of
safety, by means of rope and winch.
The plaintiff was injured while removing
ice from the railway in order to let the
cradle run down to the water.
The case is before the Law Court upon
general motion by defendant to set aside
verdict by plaintiff. The testimony of
the plaintiff is the only evidence as to
the circumstances of the injury.
f,,t 1f ha
ord the court is constrained to find that
it entirely fails to sustain the verdict up
on both grounds essential to the main-
tenance of the action.
1. Alleged Negligence of Defendant
The declaration charges negligence in
that the defendant provided for the
plaintiffs use a cradle or runway for
handling and hauling out sal boat which
was unsafe, unsuita BILE and out of repair"
The evidence shows that both cradle
and railway were substantially built and
in good repair; whatever slight repairs
were needed from time to time had been
made by the plaintiff in the performance
of his duty as caretaker. The insult
abieness claimed was that the cradle was
too heavy for one man to handle.
However, the plaintiff testifies that the
winter was severe and that during that
winter he used the cradle ten or 20 times,
and that on the night he was hurt his
wife, small women, alone turned the
winch and hauled up the cradle loaded
with rock, so than he could get out from
under it.
But the case shown af1irmatively that
his injury cannot be attributed to any un-
sultableness of the railway or cradle but
to the action of the elements, during a
severe wintry storm.
2. Centributory negligence of plain
tiff. In that winters story the ice form
ed on the railway preventing the weight
ed cradle from running down to the
water. The plaintiff accordingly Stacked
the rope for foot or more and then re-
moved the ice from the railway letting
cradle run down the length of the slack
rope; he then repeated the operation.
While SO doing he placed himself directly
in front of the cradle and was injured.
Such voluntary exposure to danger
falls nothing short of negligence. The
cradle was not over IL feet long and by
going around the upper end he would have
avoided all danger; the ice would not
have apprecably increased in the time
required to do so.
The verdict is SO clearly wrong as to
require US to set it aside.
Motion sustained.
Verdict set aside.
New trial granted.