Gince v. Beland
This text of 57 A. 300 (Gince v. Beland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The first ground of demurrer is that, so far as appears by the declaration, the fact that on the top of the ledge where the plaintiff was working there was a loose stone liable to fall, and which did fall upon him, was obvious or might have been known to the plaintiff by the exercise of due care.
The court cannot say on these allegations that the risk was obvious. Lee v. Reliance Mills, 21 R. I. 322. The stone, doubtless, was visible, but it does not follow that it was loose or liable to fall. It may have appeared to be firmly imbedded and not liable to fall. The declaration charges the defendant with knowledge.
We see no ground for demurrer on this point.
The second ground of demurrer is that the declaration does not show any duty from the defendant to warn the plaintiff of the danger.
All the cases cited on this point were on petition for a new trial, where the facts were before the court, except Brodeur v. Valley Falls, 16 R. I. 448, where the negligence of a fellow-servant appeared in the declaration. In the present case a duty, prima facie, appears, and the second ground of demurrer is not sustained.
The third ground is that, so far as appears from the declaration, the defendant was not negligent. The declaration stating a prima facie case, the question upon this point is one of fact.
Demurrer overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 A. 300, 25 R.I. 527, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gince-v-beland-ri-1904.