Symonds v. Free St. Corp.
| Decision Date | 14 July 1938 |
| Citation | 200 A. 801 |
| Parties | SYMONDS v. FREE STREET CORPORATION. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On Exception and Motion from Superior Court, Cumberland County.
Action of trespass by Ruth A. Symonds against the Free Street Corporation for injuries received by sudden starting of elevator in defendant's building from which plaintiff was alighting, wherein a verdict was returned for the plaintiff. On exception to refusal of presiding justice to direct verdict for defendant and on motion by defendant for a new trial. Exception and motion overruled.
Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.
Jacob H. Berman and Edward J. Berman, both of Portland, for plaintiff. Robinson & Richardson, of Portland, and John D. Leddy, of North Portland, for defendant.
>
After a verdict for the plaintiff this case is before us on an exception to the refusal of the presiding justice to direct a verdict for the defendant and on a motion by the defendant for a new trial. As the motion raises the same question for our consideration as does the exception, the exception is regarded as waived.
The plaintiff, who was a tenant in an office building owned and operated by the defendant in Portland, was injured by the sudden starting of the elevator while she was in the act of alighting at the first floor. The elevator was in the control of an employee of the defendant by the name of Shea, of the age of nineteen, whose competency for the particular work is not questioned. When the accident happened and for a time prior thereto, there was in the elevator a boy of the age of approximately twelve years, who had been waiting to take a music lesson in one of the offices in the building. He had been riding in the elevator and Shea had been showing him how to run it. In fact Shea had allowed him to operate it. The elevator was four feet ten inches one way, and four feet two inches the other. The operating lever was about three feet and a half from the outside edge of the door. The power remained on only as this lever was held to one side or the other of the vertical position. Receiving a signal, Shea ran the elevator with the young boy in it to the third floor where the plaintiff got on. On arriving at the first floor he took his hand off the control lever and opened the door for the plaintiff to alight. As she was in the act of stepping out, the other boy grasped the lever and threw on the power. As the elevator started, the plaintiff was thrown heavily to the floor of the building and received the injuries for which she now seeks compensation.
The essential facts are not in dispute. The defendant claims that as a matter of law the operator of the elevator was not negligent, because the accident was due to the intervening act of a third person for which the defendant was in no way responsible.
The circumstances under which a defendant will be held liable in spite of or because of the intervening act of a third person were recently considered by this court. Hatch v. Globe Laundry Co., 132 Me. 379, 171 A. 387. The rule laid down...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bobb
......244, 137 A. 689 (civil case); State v. O'Donnell et al., 131 Me. 294, 161 A. 802 (felony); Symonds v. Free Street Corp., 135 Me. 501, 200 A. 801, . 25 A.2d 237 . 117 A.L.R. 986 (civil case); ......
-
Palleria v. Farrin Bros. & Smith
...the further question whether the verdict can be sustained.' The next case to be considered is that of Symonds v. Free Street Corporation, 135 Me. 501, 200 A. 801, 802, 117 A.L.R. 986. This case was decided in 1938 and like the case of Mills v. Richardson, supra, was decided prior to the ena......
-
Labbe v. Cyr
...a refusal to direct a verdict where an added issue of excessive damages is presented by the motion. But see Symonds v. Free Street Corp., 135 Me. 501, 200 A. 801, 117 A.L.R. 986, in which the identity of issues was For the purposes of this case, however, it seems only necessary to say, and ......
-
Pease v. Shapiro .
...exceptions for failure to direct, a general motion after jury verdict is often considered because of waiver. Symonds v. Free Street Corp., 135 Me. 501, 200 A. 801, 117 A.L.R. 986. The civil rule apparently differs somewhat from the rule in criminal cases. See State v. Bobb, 138 Me. 242, 25 ......