Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co. – Case Brief
Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co., 76 Me. 100 (1884).
Case Summary
Facts: Mayhew (P) was a contractor for the Sullivan Mining Co. (D). One of Sullivan’s workers cut a hole in the platform near where Mayhew was working. The workman did not mark or identify the hole, and did not warn P. P fell through the hole and sustained serious injuries. P sued claiming that D had had carelessly and negligently failed to place a barrier or warning near the hole.
At trial, the court refused D’s question of whether or not it was a custom to mark holes that were dug in the platform. The jury found negligence and P was awarded $2500. D appealed, asserting that it had used average ordinary care and had not been negligent because it had conformed to custom.
Issue: Is the use of custom a defense to gross negligence?
Holding and Rule: No. Custom is not a defense for gross negligence where ordinary care was not used. The court held that custom was not relevant in this case and it would not have mattered if D had proven that it was customary not to mark holes. Custom is no excuse for failing to exercise ordinary care for dangerous conditions.
Disposition: Affirmed – judgment for P.
Note: The facts in this case are distinguishable from Titus v. Bradford. In Titus, P had worked for D for two years and knew the dangers of the job. In this case, P was a contractor and was not familiar with the conditions.