247 A.2d 108 (Me. 1968), Scammon v. City of Saco

Citation247 A.2d 108
Opinion JudgeWEATHERBEE,
Party NameAzalia H. SCAMMON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACO, Defendant. Christopher KEENS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACO, Defendant, v. Azalia H. SCAMMON, Third-Party Defendant.
AttorneyCharles W. Smith, Saco, Woodman, Thompson, Willard & Hewes, by Richard D. Hewes, Portland, for plaintiffs. Verrill, Dana, Philbrick, Whitehouse & Putnam, by John A. Mitchell, John W. Philbrick, Portland, for defendants.
Judge PanelBefore WEBBER, TAPLEY MARDEN and WEATHERBEE, JJ.
Case DateOctober 21, 1968
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

Page 108

247 A.2d 108 (Me. 1968)

Azalia H. SCAMMON, Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACO, Defendant.

Christopher KEENS, Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACO, Defendant,

v.

Azalia H. SCAMMON, Third-Party Defendant.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

October 21, 1968

Page 109

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 110

Charles W. Smith, Saco. Woodman, Thompson, Willard & Hewes, by Richard D. Hewes, Portland, for plaintiffs.

Verrill, Dana, Philbrick, Whitehouse & Putnam, by John A. Mitchell, John W. Philbrick, Portland, for defendants.

Before WEBBER, TAPLEY MARDEN and WEATHERBEE, JJ.

WEATHERBEE, Justice.

On appeal.

These actions result from injuries received by the plaintiffs when the automobile driven by the plaintiff Mrs. Scammon, in which the plaintiff Mr. Keens was a passenger, colliden with a large power shovel owned by the defendant City. After trial, the jury returned verdicts for both plaintiffs. The cases come here on denials of defendant's motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdicts and, in the alternative, for new trials. In determining these issues we are governed by the rule that the evidence with all proper inferences drawn from it is to be taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Tibbetts v. Central Maine Power Company, 142 Me. 190, 49 A.2d 65 (1946).

The jury could properly have found as follows: At about nine o'clock in the evening of April 22, 1965, the two plaintiffs were proceeding along Bradley Street in Saco approaching the intersection of Maple Street. It was dark at the time and the weather was clear. Maple Street is eighteen feet six inches wide and somewhat rough. In the area in question, on Mrs. Scammon's right side of Maple Street, there was a very narrow gravel shoulder adjoining the paved portion and beyond that a grassy area, and then a bare strip used by the public as a footpath. On the afternoon before, employees of the defendant had brought a large power shovel to this area for the purpose of using it in the vicinity the following morning. The power shovel had been left standing largely on the shoulder and grassy area facing the plaintiffs but with its right track occupying ten inches of the paved edge of the highway. It was unlighted and bore no reflectors and there were no warning signs or devices.

Mrs. Scammon made a right-hand turn into Maple Street and both plaintiffs observed two cars approaching them down a slight grade. Mrs. Scammon's lights were on low beam and she was traveling at about twenty miles an hour on her right-hand side of the street as she passed the two cars. She continued on the straight course and a short time later, described by the witnesses as 'a few seconds', 'a matter of seconds' and 'two or three seconds', Mrs. Scammon's car ran head-on into the shovel, her right headlight, or just inside it, striking the right track of the shovel. The over-all width of the shovel was eight feet and it was approximately the same height and depth and painted orange. It sat 420 feet from the intersection of Bradley and Maple Streets. Its boom and bucket, painted black, appear from the exhibits to be about 40 to 50 feet long and were extended along the shoulder...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • 269 A.2d 117 (Me. 1970), Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
    • September 17, 1970
    ...the case is before us for review, we must accept the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Scammon v. City of Saco, Me., 247 A.2d 108. We conclude the jury was justified in finding from the evidence. On December 23, 1966, the Plaintiff entered a store known as Lindley's in ......
  • 438 N.E.2d 881 (Ohio 1982), 81-1659, Viers v. Dunlap
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio
    • August 11, 1982
    ...1383; Rice v. Wadkins (1976), 92 Nev. 631, 555 P.2d 1232; Edwards v. Walker (1973), 95 Idaho 289, 507 P.2d 486; Scammon v. Saco (Me.1968), 247 A.2d 108; Reddell v. Norton (1956), 225 Ark. 643, 285 S.W.2d 328; Brewster v. Ludtke (1933), 211 Wis. 344, 247 N.W. 449; Fuller v. Ill. Cent. RR. Co......
  • 274 A.2d 169 (Me. 1971), Packard v. Whitten
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
    • February 24, 1971
    ...on which the two were jointly liable, could recover of the other his proportional part of one half. In Scammon v. City of Saco, Me., 247 A.2d 108 (1968) we declined to abandon this accepted principle of equal contribution. At the time of the Scammon accident, however, the common law rule of......
  • 466 A.2d 1261 (Me. 1983), Poirier v. Hayes
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
    • October 25, 1983
    ...that which is "open and apparent" to any prudent person, Parker v. Hohman, 250 A.2d 698, 704 (Me.1969); Scammon v. City of Saco, 247 A.2d 108, 111 (Me.1968), and the "failure to see in time what could have been seen, is negligence." Spang v. Cote, 144 Me. 338, 343-44, 68......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • 269 A.2d 117 (Me. 1970), Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
    • September 17, 1970
    ...the case is before us for review, we must accept the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Scammon v. City of Saco, Me., 247 A.2d 108. We conclude the jury was justified in finding from the evidence. On December 23, 1966, the Plaintiff entered a store known as Lindley's in ......
  • 438 N.E.2d 881 (Ohio 1982), 81-1659, Viers v. Dunlap
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio
    • August 11, 1982
    ...1383; Rice v. Wadkins (1976), 92 Nev. 631, 555 P.2d 1232; Edwards v. Walker (1973), 95 Idaho 289, 507 P.2d 486; Scammon v. Saco (Me.1968), 247 A.2d 108; Reddell v. Norton (1956), 225 Ark. 643, 285 S.W.2d 328; Brewster v. Ludtke (1933), 211 Wis. 344, 247 N.W. 449; Fuller v. Ill. Cent. RR. Co......
  • 274 A.2d 169 (Me. 1971), Packard v. Whitten
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
    • February 24, 1971
    ...on which the two were jointly liable, could recover of the other his proportional part of one half. In Scammon v. City of Saco, Me., 247 A.2d 108 (1968) we declined to abandon this accepted principle of equal contribution. At the time of the Scammon accident, however, the common law rule of......
  • 466 A.2d 1261 (Me. 1983), Poirier v. Hayes
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
    • October 25, 1983
    ...that which is "open and apparent" to any prudent person, Parker v. Hohman, 250 A.2d 698, 704 (Me.1969); Scammon v. City of Saco, 247 A.2d 108, 111 (Me.1968), and the "failure to see in time what could have been seen, is negligence." Spang v. Cote, 144 Me. 338, 343-44, 68......
  • Request a trial to view additional results