Case Name: Jacob Wagner vs. Inhabitants of Camden
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1882-05-29
Citations: 73 Me. 485
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob Wagner vs. Inhabitants of Camden.
Judges: Daneorth, Virgin, Peters, Libbey and Symonds, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
Jacob Wagner vs. Inhabitants of Camden.
Knox.
Opinion May 29, 1882.
Ways. Defeat. Damage. Notice. Stat. 1877, a. 206.
The notice to the municipal officers of a town required by stat. 1877. c. 206, must state not only the nature and location of the defect and the nature of the injuries received, but it must also set forth the injured person’s claim for damages, or it will not be sufficient.
On report.
An action to recover damages sustained from a defect in a highway in the defendant town. Writ was dated October 11, 1880.
By the terms of the report if the following notice was insufficient, the plaintiff was to become .nonsuit, otherwise case to-stand for trial.
(Notice.)
"To the selectmen of the town of Camden : I hereby notify you that on the evening of October twelfth, instant, I received personal injuries on account of a defect and want of railing in the highway, in the town of Camden. The defect is located. upon the north side of the shore road leading from Camden to Lincolnville, about ten rods westerly from the dwelling house of Dr. Jonathan Huse. The defect consists of a bridge along the ' north side of said road, elevated about five feet above the ground on the northerly side of the same, and there is no sufficient railing upon the north side of said bridge. My injuries consist of bruises, and injuries to my arm, shoulder, side, back and other parts of my person, caused by my falling off the north side of said bridge.
Belmont, Oct. 18, 1879.
Jacob Wagner.”
J. II. Montgomery, for the plaintiff.
"Notices in this class of cases, are not to be very strictly construed. . . . The main object of a notice is, that the town may have an early opportunity of investigating the cause of an injury and the condition of the person injured, before changes may occur essentially affecting such proof of the facts as may be desirable for the town to possess.” Blackington v. Bockland, 66 Maine, 333; Sawyer v. Naples, 66 Maine, 454.
The notice was ample for all these necessary purposes.
A. P. Gould, for the defendants,
cited: Sawyer v. Naples, 66 Maine, 453; Hubbard v. Fayette, 70 Maine, 121.

Opinion:
Walton, J.
The notice to the municipal officers of a town, required by the act of 1877, c. 206, must state not only the nature and location of the defect, and the nature of the injuries received, but it must also set forth the injured person's claim for damages, or it will not be sufficient. The notice in this case contains no claim for damages, nor any intimation that such a claim is made. It states that the plaintiff received personal injuries on account of a defect, and it describes the defect, but it contains no statement that the plaintiff claimed to recover damages of the town on'account of his injuries. Such a notice is clearly defective and insufficient under the statute above cited. As stipulated in the report, the entry must be,
Plaintiff nonsuit.
Daneorth, Virgin, Peters, Libbey and Symonds, JJ., concurred.