Lavigne v. Lewiston Mills Co.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1887
• Citation: 10 A. 62
• Parties: LAVIGNE v. LEWISTON MILLS CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

10 A. 62

LAVIGNE

v. LEWISTON MILLS CO.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 20, 1887.

On motion for new trial by defendant from supreme judicial court, Androscoggin county.

Action on the case to recover damages because of injuries to the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence.

Savage & Oakes and A. A. Strout, for plaintiff. Frye, Cotton & White, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant company, and was operating a goods elevator in their cotton-mill. The elevator cage was raised and lowered by a rope passing over a drum near the top of the building, and supporting at the other end a weight to counterbalance the weight of the cage. The drum was about an iron shaft, and the whole was made to revolve by an iron bevel gear on the shaft, which gear fitted into the propelling machinery. On one occasion the plaintiff had ascended with a loaded cage to the upper floor. As he was stepping off the cage to the floor, the gear suddenly broke, and left the shaft and drum free to revolve under the weight of the load. As a consequence, the cage instantly fell to the lower floor, and the plaintiff, not having gained a footing, also fell, and was severely injured. Three matters were alleged against the defendant company at the trial as constituting negligence on their part, and as causing the plaintiff's injury. (1) An imperfect gear from an old break, which would have become known to the defendant company upon such careful inspection as they were bound to make; (2) an imperfect arrangement at the upper floor, by reason of which the iron material of the gear was weakened by repeated blows from the trap-door during the operation of the elevator; (3) the absence of all appliances whatsoever for checking the descent of the cage in case of the breaking of the machinery. There was some little evidence in support of the first two matters named, and also much evidence the other way. The third named matter was fully proved and practically admitted. The defendant company made at the trial two answers to this third specification of negligence: (1) That none of the appliances in use in goods elevators like this will check a fall caused by the breaking of the gear, and consequently their absence did not contribute to the fall; (2) that the plaintiff knew of such...