Graffam v. Saco Grange, Patrons of Husbandry, No. 53

• Decision Date: 30 December 1914
• Citation: 112 Me. 508,92 A. 649
• Parties: GRAFFAM v. SACO GRANGE, PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY, NO. 53.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

92 A. 649

112 Me. 508

GRAFFAM

v. SACO GRANGE, PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY, NO. 53.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 30, 1914.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, York County, at Law.

Action by Carrie B. Graffam, as administratrix, against the Saco Grange, Patrons of Husbandry, No. 53. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and moved for new trial. New trial denied on condition that plaintiff enter remittitur; otherwise granted.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and CORNISH, BIRD, HANSON, and PHILBROOK, JJ.

John G. Smith, of Saco, for plaintiff.

Cleaves, Waterhouse & Emery, of Biddeford, for defendant.

PHILBROOK, J. This is an action brought by an administratrix, under the provisions of R. S. c. 89, §§ 9, 10, to recover damages resulting from the death of a boy nearly 11 1/2 years of age, his heirs being a mother, who is the administratrix, and three sisters. The plaintiff says that the defendant, while conducting an agricultural fair on hired grounds, allowed a person to erect and run a shooting gallery in which a 22-caliber repeating rifle was used; that a cartridge got lodged in the working parts of the rifle, and, while the person in charge of the gallery was trying to remedy the trouble, the rifle was accidentally and carelessly discharged, and the bullet passed through the boy's head, resulting in his death.

The defendant offered no evidence, but at the close of the plaintiff's testimony requested the presiding justice to direct a verdict for the defendant, and upon the refusal of the justice to so rule the defendant seasonably excepted. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,873.33. Defendant then filed a motion for a new trial on the usual grounds. As the exceptions and the motion raise the same questions, they will be considered together.

The evidence satisfactorily establishes the proposition that the boy met his death from the accidental discharge of the rifle, but the defendant urges that it should not be held liable for the damages resulting from that death. It says that the evidence does not show that the fair grounds were hired or the fair conducted by this defendant. A detailed discussion of the testimony upon this point would not be profitable, for this question was submitted to the jury under instructions which we assume were full and correct, since the charge of the presiding justice is not reported, and we are not disposed to disturb this feature of the verdict. It further says that it is not liable because all ordinary care was taken to protect the public, so far as a safe target was concerned, and that the accident was caused by the unfortunate manner in which the owner of the rifle attempted to remedy a trouble in the working of the rifle, and against this accidental result it says it was not bound to provide. We do not think this contention can prevail. The defendant says that the case at bar differs from Thornton v. Agricultural Society, 97 Me. 108, 53 Atl. 979, 94 Am. St. Rep. 488, and, while this is partially true, yet certain principles of law expounded in that case are applicable to this one. In that case our court said:

"It is too well settled to need the citation of authorities, that if the owner or occupier of land either directly or by implication induces persons to come upon his premises, he thereby assumes an obligation to see that such premises are in a reasonably safe condition, so that the persons there by his invitation may not be injured by them or in their use for the purpose for which the invitation was extended. * * * It was its (the defendant) duty to use reasonable care that there should be no traps or pitfalls into which the invited might fall, and that there should be no dangerous plays, or sports, or...