From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scannell v. Mohican Market

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Androscoggin County
Jun 2, 1932
160 A. 777 (Me. 1932)

Opinion

Decided June 2, 1932.

Berman Berman, for plaintiff.

Locke, Perkins Williamson, for defendant.


This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while in the defendant's grocery store as a customer. At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendant's motion for a nonsuit was granted by the Justice presiding and the case is before us on exceptions to that ruling.

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the facts disclosed, which, as far as they are essential, are not in dispute. The burden rested on the plaintiff to show negligence on the part of the defendant. We unhesitatingly find that she failed to sustain that burden. She presented no evidence sufficient to have warranted the submission of the case to the jury. If the case had been so submitted, on the record before us a verdict in her favor could not have been upheld.

The entry must be, Exceptions overruled.


Summaries of

Scannell v. Mohican Market

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Androscoggin County
Jun 2, 1932
160 A. 777 (Me. 1932)
Case details for

Scannell v. Mohican Market

Case Details

Full title:ALICE L. SCANNELL vs. THE MOHICAN MARKET

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Androscoggin County

Date published: Jun 2, 1932

Citations

160 A. 777 (Me. 1932)
160 A. 777

Citing Cases

Lander v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

Howe v. Houde, 137 Me. 119, 15 A.2d 740; Barrett v. Greenall, 139 Me. 75, 27 A.2d 599; Jordan v. Maine…