Wadsworth v. Marshall
32 L.R.A. 588, 88 Me. 263, 34 A. 30 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that imposes liability for all damages caused by a rock explosion for which seasonable notice was not given makes the violator negligent per se, but does not abrogate the common law defense of contributory negligence.
Facts:
- A defendant was engaged in blasting rocks in proximity to a public highway.
- The defendant set off an explosion without giving the seasonable notice required by statute.
- A plaintiff was traveling on the highway near the site of the explosion with a horse.
- The noise from the defendant's explosion frightened the plaintiff's horse.
- The plaintiff was injured as a result of the horse's reaction to the explosion.
- The defendant alleged that the plaintiff's horse was vicious, not properly broken, and unsafe for use on a public highway.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court to recover for injuries sustained from a blasting incident.
- During the trial, the defendant attempted to introduce evidence that the plaintiff's horse was vicious and unsafe.
- The trial court judge excluded the defendant's offered testimony.
- The defendant also made requests for jury instructions which the trial court refused.
- Following an adverse outcome (implied), the defendant filed exceptions, bringing the case before the state's highest court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's violation of a statute requiring notice before a rock explosion, which makes the defendant liable for 'all damages caused by any explosion,' preclude the defendant from raising the plaintiff's contributory negligence as a defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Strout, J.
No. A defendant's violation of the blasting notice statute does not preclude the defense of contributory negligence. The statute makes failure to give the required notice negligence per se, but the cause of action is still fundamentally one for negligence, to which contributory negligence is a valid defense. The court reasoned that while the statute is penal in affixing a penalty, its provision for damages is remedial and should be construed as such. Citing the general rule that the doctrine of contributory negligence governs actions based on negligence, whether at common law or under a statute, the court held it would be a 'harsh construction' to make a defendant liable for damages that were largely, or wholly, caused by the plaintiff's own negligence, such as using an unsafe horse. Therefore, evidence of the horse's vicious character was relevant to the issue of the plaintiff's contributory negligence and should have been admitted. The court also clarified that the statute's protection against 'explosion' includes damages from the noise frightening horses, not just from flying debris, and that the term 'approaching' covers anyone in proximity to the blast, not just those moving towards it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a statute creating a specific duty of care and imposing liability for its breach does not automatically create absolute liability. Instead, it establishes negligence per se, meaning the breach of the statute satisfies the duty and breach elements of a negligence claim, but traditional common law defenses like contributory negligence remain available unless explicitly abrogated by the legislature. The court's purposive interpretation of the statutory terms 'explosion' and 'approaching' also demonstrates a move away from rigid literalism to effectuate legislative intent and avoid absurd results. This case solidifies the principle that statutory torts will generally be integrated into the existing common law framework of negligence unless the statute clearly dictates otherwise.
Unlock the full brief for Wadsworth v. Marshall