Goodwin v. City of Gardiner

• Decision Date: 04 February 1892
• Citation: 24 A. 846,84 Me. 278
• Parties: GOODWIN v. CITY OF GARDINER.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

24 A. 846

84 Me. 278

GOODWIN

v. CITY OF GARDINER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 4, 1892.

(Official.)

Exceptions from superior court, Kennebec county.

Action by George W. Goodwin against the city of Gardiner. Plaintiff was nonsuited, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Farr & Lynch, for plaintiff.

A. L. Perry and Baker, Baker & Cornish, for defendants.

PETERS, C. J. The plaintiff, claiming that he had received a personal injury caused by a defective highway in the city of Gardiner, seasonably sent to the city this notice:

"To the City Clerk of Gardiner: I, George W. Goodwin, of Randolph, Maine, in the county of Kennebec, on the first day of January, 1890, met with serious injuries in the city of Gardiner, on a street leading from Water street to Steamboat wharf, at a point where the railroad passes over said street, by the street having been graded up so that said street was not safe and convenient for public travel. I was caught between a load of pressed hay and the railroad bridge at said point, and received severe bodily Injuries, for which I claim damages of the city of Gardiner. George W. Goodwin."

This was objected to by the defendants as insufficient, and we think the objection must be sustained. The statute requires more than a bare statement that a bodily injury was received. The nature of the injury must be stated. This notice describes with particularity the place and manner of the accident, but makes no mention of the kind of bodily injury sustained. It would have been more natural for the plaintiff, if really injured severely, to state how and to what extent the injury affected him, whether upon the head or back, upon his arms or legs, and whether general or particular. The assertion is that he met with injuries, and not one of them is named. No kind of injury is either included or excluded by the notice.

One object of the statute requiring notice within 14 days after an injury is alleged to have been received is that the injured person shall thus early commit himself to a statement of his condition, when he would be more likely to describe it frankly and fairly than at a later period. There is great temptation to magnify and exaggerate such personal injuries, and the town is entitled to as particular a notice as can reasonably be given. This case is virtually determined by that of Low v. Windham, 75 Me. 113, where a very similar notice was held to be defective. There the notice was "of injuries I received in going...