Charpentier v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.
| Citation | 157 A. 237 |
| Parties | CHARPENTIER v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1931 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Action by Dominique Charpentier against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, in which there was verdict for plaintiff. On general motion.
Motion sustained.
Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, PARRINGTON, and THAXTER, JJ.
Berman & Berman, of Lewiston, for plaintiff.
Carl F. Getchell, of Lewiston, for defendant.
Action to recover for personal injuries due to alleged negligence of defendant.
On general motion after a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $2791.
Inasmuch as it was agreed that the defendant company was a nonassenting employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1919, c. 238 as amended), it could not avail itself of possible defenses arising from the fellow-servant doctrine, assumption of risk, or contributory negligence, and such defenses require no discussion; the only question involved being whether or not there was negligence on the part of the defendant company.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant company as an assistant clerk in one of its stores located at the corner of Lisbon and Chandler streets in Lewiston, Me.
On one side of the store towards the rear was a meat cooler and on the other side a vegetable cooler, with a passageway between about four feet wide leading to a room in the rear used for storage purposes. Just before the store closed Saturday night, May 11, 1929, the plaintiff, as a part of his work, was carrying a fifty pound box of onions from the outside front of the store, and fell in the passageway referred to above, suffering the injuries for which recovery was sought.
The plaintiff, when asked to tell what happened, testified: Interrogated as to whether he saw the leaf on which he claimed to have slipped, plaintiff replied, When asked what was the condition of the floor at the time he fell, plaintiff replied, The plaintiff testified that on this Saturday, prior to the time of his injury, vegetable products consisting of lettuce, cabbage, cauliflower, carrots, and beets had been unpacked in the passageway by Mr. Desjardins, the manager. Plaintiff also testified that he had swept up at the noon hour as a part of his duty, but that he had no opportunity to sweep up again at any later time up to the closing hour; but there is no evidence that after this noon sweeping there was any further unpacking of vegetable or other products, and there is undisputed testimony of Mr. Cote, manager of the meat department, that the unpacking was finished by nine or ten o'clock in the forenoon.
The plaintiff testified that Mr. Desjardins saw him fall and asked him if he hurt himself and talked with him while he was on the floor, and plaintiff said, "I didn't think I hurt myself much." The record discloses no statement by plaintiff to Mr. Desjardins that he slipped on a leaf or any refuse in the passageway, or that the alleged slipping was in any way due to conditions there. The plaintiff testified that he went home after the store closed, and that he returned to the store Monday morning and told Mr. Desjardins "that that fall I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lander v. Sears
...687. The distinction between his duty and that of an insurer was well drawn by Mr. Justice Farrington in Charpentier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 130 Me. 423, 157 A. 237, 238, when he said, in speaking of the duty of a railroad to its employees: ‘It does not undertake to provide a r......
-
Orr v. First Nat. Stores, Inc.
...attendant for every child.' See also Lander v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1945) 141 Me. 422, 44 A.2d 882; Charpentier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1931) 130 Me. 423, 427, 157 A. 237, 238, wherein the Court said, 'Not only can the defendant company not be held as an insurer, but it cannot......
-
Faltinali v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 7559.
...the negligence of a fellow servant by statutory enactment. The defendant relies strongly upon the case of Charpentier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 130 Me. 423, 157 A. 237, 238, as a decision squarely in point in support of its position in the instant case. In examining that case we ......
-
Walker v. Weymouth
...687. The distinction between his duty and that of an insurer was well drawn by Mr. Justice Farrington in Charpentier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 130 Me. 423, 157 A. 237, 238, when he said, in speaking of the duty of a railroad to its employees: 'It does not undertake to provide a r......