Beverage v. Inhabitants of Rockport

• Decision Date: 09 December 1909
• Parties: BEVERAGE v. INHABITANTS OF ROCKPORT.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

76 A. 677

106 Me. 223

BEVERAGE

v. INHABITANTS OF ROCKPORT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 9, 1909.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Knox County.

Action by William F. Beverage against the Inhabitants of Rockport. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions, and moves for new trial. Motion and exceptions overruled.

Special action on the case under Rev. St. c. 23, § 76, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while riding in the evening along a highway in the defendant town, and caused by a collision of his wagon with a guy wire employed by the defendant town to support a certain derrick in the highway and which was unguarded by a light or other warning. Plea, the general issue. Verdict for the plaintiff for $988. The defendant town excepted to certain rulings made during the trial, and filed a general motion for a new trial and also a special motion for the same purpose on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Argued before WHITEHOUSE, SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, and BIRD, JJ.

C. T. Smalley, for plaintiff.

Arthur S. Littlefield and G. H. M. Barrett, for defendant.

WHITEHOUSE, J. In this action the plaintiff obtained a verdict of $988 for personal injuries received by him on the evening of August 18, 1907, while he was traveling along the highway leading from Rockport village to Simonton's Corner in the town or Rockport. He claims that the injuries were caused by a collision of his wagon with a guy wire employed by the defendant to support a derrick which was in use at that point in the highway, but unguarded by a light or other warning.

The plaintiff was required by section 76, c. 23, Rev. St., to give the municipal officers a written notice of the accident within 14 days thereafter "stating his claim for damages and specifying the nature of his injuries, and the nature and location of the defect which caused such injury."

For the purpose of complying with this requirement of the statute, the plaintiff caused the following notice to be seasonably given to the municipal officers of the defendant town, viz.:

"Camden, Maine, August 20, 1907.

"To the Selectmen of the Town of Rockport:

"You are hereby notified that William F. Beverage of Camden was injured on the highway leading from Rockport to Simonton's Corner, on the night of August 18th about 9 o'clock, at a point near the turn on the eastern side of Melvin bridge so called. That said injury was caused by his being thrown from his carriage by contact with a guy wire there used to support a derrick there being used in the repair of said bridge. That no suitable light was placed on or near said guy wire. That said injury consisted of facial bruises and internal injuries, the extent of which cannot be ascertained at this time. That a claim for damage will be made against said town."

The defendant's counsel seasonably objected to this notice on the ground of its insufficiency, and contended that it was defective with respect to all of the purposes for which such a notice is required. The presiding justice admitted the notice subject to the objection, and the case comes to this court on exceptions to this ruling and upon a motion to set aside the verdict as against the evidence, and on account of newly discovered evidence relating to the question of damages. As stated by this court in Marcotte v. Lewiston, 94 Me. 233, 47 Atl. 137, the manifest purpose of this requirement of 14 days' notice "is to afford opportunity to the town officers to examine the place, ascertain from persons having knowledge of the facts, while the recollection is fresh, all the attending circumstances, and determine as to the liability of the town, and prepare its defense if the town decides to defend."' In view of the limited time within which these notices must be served, and the fact that they are often necessarily prepared without the aid of a professional draftsman, their construction should not be "strangled by technicalities nor distorted by captious criticism," but full effect should be given to their natural and obvious meaning.

In the ease at bar the defendant's first criticism of the notice is that it contains no distinct averment that the plaintiff was injured by reason of a defect in the highway, and makes no claim for damages expressed in the present tense, but announces that a claim will be made at some time in the future. True, the notice does not expressly characterize the alleged obstruction as a defect, but it plainly states that the plaintiff was injured on the highway by reason of a collision of his team with a derrick guy then in use and unguarded. It describes a condition which the jury might find to be dangerous and defective. It stated the facts and gave the town officers the information required to enable them to perform their duty with respect to that feature of the case. The...