Hull v. L. & A. Montagnard Social Club, Inc.

Decision Date04 October 1985
Citation498 A.2d 597
CourtMaine Supreme Court
PartiesSheila S. HULL v. The L. & A. MONTAGNARD SOCIAL CLUB, INC.

Platz & Thompson, P.A., Paul S. Douglass (orally), Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Thomas M. Mangan (orally), Lewiston, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN and GLASSMAN, JJ.

NICHOLS, Justice.

On this appeal from a judgment returned against it in Superior Court (Androscoggin County), the Defendant, the L. & A. Montagnard Social Club, Inc., challenges upon what must be an obvious error basis the Superior Court's application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the facts of this case and further contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict for the Plaintiff, Sheila S. Hull.

We affirm the judgment below.

The Defendant is a private social club that, among other activities, operates beano games in its building on Maple Street in Lewiston. On April 25, 1980, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant's establishment and purchased a beano card. When she proceeded to sit on one of the metal chairs provided by the Defendant for beano players, the chair gave way under her, causing her to fall to the floor. She heard something snap and saw a bolt go flying onto the floor. As the chair collapsed, it struck her in the lower spine. She was subsequently treated by an orthopedist, who diagnosed her injury as a ruptured disc caused by this abrupt fall.

The Plaintiff brought this negligence action, which was tried to a jury on March 22-23, 1983. There the Plaintiff offered evidence concerning her injury and the circumstances surrounding it. She also introduced the dissevered bolt, which showed signs of metal stress. The Club's president indicated that the broken chair was at least thirty years old and testified that all the Club's chairs were inspected every six months. Neither party offered evidence as to what caused the chair to collapse when it did.

The Superior Court instructed the jury concerning res ipsa loquitur, without incurring an objection. 1 The jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, awarding damages in the amount of $8,500. The Defendant failed to move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence and to object to the instruction.

The errors now asserted not having been preserved at trial, our review on this appeal is limited to determining whether they deprived the Defendant of a fair trial and worked an injustice. Dongo v. Banks, 448 A.2d 885, 889 (Me.1982).

The court's instruction was consistent with the traditional requirements of res ipsa loquitur. See, e.g., Pratt v. Freese's, Inc., 438 A.2d 901, 903-04 (Me.1981). Stodder v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc., 142 Me. 139, 142, 48 A.2d 622, 624 (1946).

However, we have modified these requirements by adopting the standards for res ipsa loquitur set forth in the Restatement of the Law (Second) of Torts § 328D (1965):

"(1) It may be inferred that harm suffered by the plaintiff is caused by negligence of the defendant when

(a) the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence;

(b) other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence; and (c) the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff." (Emphasis added).

Ginn v. Penobscot Co., 334 A.2d 874, 880 (Me.1975). To be consistent with these standards, the Superior Court should have instructed the jury that it would have to find additionally that other responsible causes of the collapse of the chair had been eliminated by the evidence before it could infer that the Defendant was negligent.

This deviation from the standards we have approved does not constitute obvious error, however. In many jurisdictions courts have permitted or required res ipsa loquitur instructions with no qualification that all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Judson v. Camelot Food, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1988
    ...ipsa theory under the type of facts in the case at bar finds wide support in other jurisdictions. See e.g., Hull v. L. & A. Montagnard Social Club, Inc., 498 A.2d 597 (Me.1985) (despite neither defendant nor plaintiff offering evidence as to what caused metal chair to collapse, causing plai......
  • McLaughlin v. Sy
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1991
    ...been admissible, or the court's basis for excluding it. Accordingly, we review only for obvious error. See Hull v. L. & A. Montagnard Social Club, Inc., 498 A.2d 597, 598 (Me.1985); State v. Howard, 405 A.2d 206, 210 (Me.1979). We find The court's instruction on the standard of care in a me......
  • Poulin v. Aquaboggan Waterslide
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • December 28, 1989
    ...(c) the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff. Id; see also Hull v. L. & A. Montagnard Social Club, Inc., 498 A.2d 597, 598-99 (Me.1985). It has long been the rule in Maine that a claimant may rely on the doctrine of res ipsa even though the actio......
  • Platts v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • April 28, 1987
    ...perhaps this weakness in their case, Plaintiffs have invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, citing Hull v. L. & A. Montagnard Social Club, Inc., 498 A.2d 597 (Me.1985). The Court rejects this argument. It appears to the Court that the problem with door six may well have been caused by a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT