Conley v. Am. Exp. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 March 1895
• Citation: 32 A. 965,87 Me. 352
• Parties: CONLEY v. AMERICAN EXP. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

32 A. 965

87 Me. 352

CONLEY

v. AMERICAN EXP. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 29, 1895.

(Official.)

Exceptions from superior court, Cumberland county.

Action for personal injuries by Matthew J. Conley against the American Express Company. To a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

This was an action on the case in which it was alleged that the injuries received by the plaintiff while in the defendant's employ were caused by its negligence in not furnishing a safe and suitable door, with its machinery or mechanism, which the plaintiff was required to use in his business, by reason whereof he received the injuries complained of.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant moved a nonsuit for the following reasons, viz.:

(1) Because of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

(2) Because the plaintiff, at the time of the injury, had knowledge of the defective machinery or mechanism connected with the door.

(3) Because the plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was voluntarily engaged in work outside the scope of his employment.

(4) Because the defective door was not the cause of the accident.

(5) Because the evidence does not show a cause of action.

The court thereupon ordered that the plaintiff become nonsuit, and he took exceptions.

A. W. Bradbury and G. P. McQuillan, for plaintiff.

Charles P. Libby, for defendant.

WHITEHOUSE, J. This is an action brought by an employe of the defendant company to recover damages for a fracture of his kneepan, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the defective condition of the iron track on which the wheels at the top of a sliding door in the defendant's warehouse in Portland were made to run as the door was opened and closed. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the presiding judge ordered a nonsuit, and the case comes to this court on exceptions to this ruling.

It is the opinion of the court that a verdict for the plaintiff could not properly have been allowed to stand on the evidence reported, and that the nonsuit was therefore rightly ordered.

The plaintiff was twenty-five years of age, and had been in the service of the defendant company some two years at the time of the accident. On the night of February 8, 1893, he had completed his task of transferring the express matter from the cars to the warehouse, and attempted to close one of the sliding doors, eight feet high and seven feet wide, on the front side of the building. According to his own testimony, he had experienced difficulty in closing this door several days prior to this time, and on examination found that by reason of the absence of two screws the rear end of the iron track on which the wheels ran had sprung out an inch and a half or more. Thus, when the door was rolled back as far as it could go, "it would stick," and he had found it difficult to move it. He explained the defect to the agent, Mr. Durgin, at that time, and...