Bennett v. Thurston

• Citation: 114 A. 459
• Parties: BENNETT v. THURSTON.
• Decision Date: 03 August 1921
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

114 A. 459

BENNETT

v. THURSTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 3, 1921.

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Lincoln County, at Law.

Action by William R. Bennett against Hiram T. Thurston. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant moves for a new trial. Motion sustained, and new trial granted.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHlEBROOK, MORRILL, and WILSON, JJ.

George A. Cowan, of Damariscotta, for plaintiff.

C. R. Tupper, of Boothbay Harbor, for defendant.

WILSON, J. An action to recover damages for negligence in the repairs of a gasoline engine. The jury found for the plaintiff, and awarded damages in the sum of $191.93. The case comes before this court on a motion for a new trial on the usual grounds.

We think the motion must be sustained. The plaintiff was the owner of a motorboat, in which was installed a four-cylinder engine originally designed for use in automobiles, but was later adapted for use in motorboats. The first summer it was installed in the plaintiff's boat it stripped the gears, and a second time the following summer. It was then shipped back to the makers, and new and heavier gears substituted, and in the spring of 1920 was installed again in the boat by parties at South Bristol. Trouble in operating it appeared at once. After running a short time it would become "stiff," and could be turned over with difficulty. It was attributed to the oiling system.

It was then taken to the defendant for inspection and repairs to remedy this trouble. Upon trying it the defendant expressed the opinion it was getting water in the cylinders. An employee of the defendant was directed by him to take off the cylinder heads in order that it might be examined inside. The employee later came to the defendant and reported that the cylinder heads were stuck on, and he needed something with which to take them off. Whereupon the defendant went down to the boat, and upon examination found a nut concealed by a cap which the employee had not removed, and upon the removal of this nut and the insertion of a small screwdriver under the heads they came off without difficulty. Water was found in the second and third cylinders.

The defendant thereupon oiled the cylinders thoroughly, and, thinking the leaking might be due to a defective gasket, made a new gasket for at least one of the cylinder heads, and tried it out. It was found, however, that after a few movements the same trouble developed as before. The cylinder heads were then examined and tested by water pressure and for warping and the engine removed from the boat, the pistons taken out and polished and the engine again installed. The defendant did not discover any cracks in the cylinder walls, and did not examine for them. The same trouble as before, however, appeared upon use in the boat. It was then thought there might be trouble with the ignition system and the plaintiff had a new one installed, but with no better results.

Another mechanic was then employed to examine the engine and upon taking off the cylinder heads and examining the insides of the cylinders he discovered small cracks in the walls of the second...