Buck v. Maine Cent. Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1955
• Court: Maine Supreme Court
• Parties: Elizabeth Holmes BUCK v. MAINE CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.

Page 330

118 A.2d 330

151 Me. 280

Elizabeth Holmes BUCK v. MAINE CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Oct. 28, 1955.

Silsby & Silsby, Ellsworth, for plaintiff.

Myer Epstein, Bangor, Blaisdell & Blaisdell, Ellsworth, for defendant.

Before FELLOWS, C. J., and WILLIAMSON, BELIVEAU, TAPLEY and WEBBER, JJ.

WEBBER, Justice.

Plaintiff was a passenger on defendant's bus which was in transit from Ellsworth to Boston, Massachusetts. The bus came to a stop in front of the Arrow Restaurant in Nobleboro. This restaurant was owned and operated by third parties and defendant had no control over the premises. The bus driver informed the passengers that there would be a 'lunch stop for all the passengers'. Plaintiff left the bus and entered the restaurant through the door on the easterly side. She ate her lunch and then proceeded in search of the ladies' room. She made no inquiry as to its location, but started to leave the restaurant through the door on the westerly side. It was then the middle of the day and broad daylight. She opened the inner door which pulled toward her and then pushed the outer door away from her to open it. Her entire explanation of the accident which then ensued is as follows: 'I * * * looked out and I saw steps, and so I started to step down and the next thing I knew I was on the ground.' The record discloses no other evidence which, directly or inferentially, would explain the fall. There were no eye witnesses. There is no suggestion that there were any holes or cracks in the steps or any foreign substances or accumulations thereon. The steps were semicircular in design and built of cement. The top step had a radius of 24 inches and each of the two bottom steps had a 12 inch tread. The top step projected laterally 6 inches beyond the door sill on each side. The riser was in each case about 6 1/2 inches. Although the construction differed somewhat from the ordinary rectangular step, it is obvious that there was nothing about the steps which rendered them dangerous per se or which presented any unusual hazard to one in the exercise of due care. Moreover, it is impossible to determine from the evidence whether the construction of the steps contributed to the plaintiff's fall. It is equally possible that plaintiff carelessly stepped beyond the edge of the step and caught her heel, or missed her footing altogether, exactly as she could have when carelessly over-stepping a rectangular step. In short, we were left entirely to conjecture and surmise, which will not substitute for evidence or reasonable inferences from evidence. Winterson v. Pantel Realty Co., ...