Shackford v. Coffin

• Decision Date: 21 February 1901
• Citation: 49 A. 57,95 Me. 69
• Parties: SHACKFORD v. COFFIN.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

49 A. 57

95 Me. 69

SHACKFORD

v. COFFIN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 21, 1901.

(Official.)

On motion from supreme judicial court, York county.

Action by Stephen Shackford against James E. Coffin. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial. Motion sustained.

This was an action by a tenant against a landlord for an alleged defective platform at the head of a set of stairs leading from the street to the building. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff. The substantial facts appearing in evidence are as follows:

The tenement in question is located in Springvale village, in the town of Sanford, and was owned by the defendant, who lived in Shapleigh, about 12 miles distant. The building was two story, with a meat shop on the first floor and a tenement overhead. One James H. Makin, of Springvale, acted as agent for the defendant.

The plaintiff hired the tenement through Makin, March 18, 1899, and before hiring it he took the key and examined the building.

The plaintiff says that Makin agreed to repair the stairs and "make them safe." This Makin denied, and says that the repairing of the stairs "was never mentioned"; "He did not ask repairs of any kind,"—and testified that it was understood between them that, "if there was any repairs to be made, he [tenant] was to make them," and that "he [Makin] did not know that the stairs were unsafe."

Makin exchanged stoves with Shackford, and his two men, weighing 175 pounds and 140 pounds, respectively, moved the stove, which weighed more than 200 pounds, into the tenement.

The plaintiff received his alleged injuries on the 8th day of July, 1899, while moving out of the building, and his was the only weight on the platform at the time.

The plaintiff moved into the building March 18, 1899. He said that when he moved in he had seen the stairs, and "thought they were not safe," and "knew all the time that they were not safe"; "They didn't stand very firm."

And, as a result of his knowledge of the unsafe condition, before moving out he put props under the stairs. He had to go under the stairs to put up the props, and, when asked if there was anything to prevent him from seeing up under the platform, answered by saying: "There was nothing; no, sir."

The defect claimed by plaintiff was that the brace in the stairway or planking, upon which the planking rested, where it was mortised in, had rotted off, and could not have been seen from the outside without taking up the planking and making an examination. The top stair covered it.

The defendant...