Daily Kennebec journal., 1894-02-24
SHE HAD 4 PASS.
And Law csust Declares She Can't Get
Damages Frem kenasbe: Steamboat Co.


The reacriptin the case Marcia E. Rogers
VI. the Kennebec Steamboat Company has
Just been announced.
Judge Whitehouse drew the opinion,
which was concurred in by al the members
of the law court. The orinion is a very
elaborate one, the Judge having exhaustively
reviewed many authorities both English
and American.
The case was the first Of its kind which
had ever been tried in this State. twas
ably argued before the law court last July.
Weston Thompson of Brunswick appeared
for the plaintiff and A. C. Stilphen of Gar
diner ard Judge Symonls of Portland ap-
peared for the defendant.
The follosiog from the statement of fact
will be found of interest in this connection:
On the evening Of Nov. 90. 1890, the de-
PENDANTS steamer Kennebec arrived at the
wharf in Bath about half-past five o'clock
on her regular passage from Gardiner to
Boston. There was fresh breeze
from the northwest, with a flood
tide and freezing temperature, and
the spray from the wheels caused ice to
form on the guards Of the steamer. The
gangplank was adjusted so as to form
bridge or passagewsy between the steamer
and the wharf. The pl .in.iff had come
down from Brunswick by rail and was
going on boarl as a passenger to Bo:ton.
She was on the gangplank and
with single step more would have been on
the steamer, when suddenly by reason Of
the swaying of the boat, the end of The
gang-plank resting on the steamer slipped
from its place and dropped down over the
margin of the guard. The Zip" of ths
plank was thereby thrown upward and back.
ward, the edge of it striking the plaintiff.
leg and inhic,ing the injury Of which she
complains.
The conclusions are set forth in the fol
lowing
REscRIrT-RogeIs VS.. Kennebec Steam
boat Co.-On exceptions from the supe-
rior court of Cumberland county.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants
servants were guilty of negligence in the
management of the steamers gangplank at
the wharf in Bath, and in this action to re-
cover damages for a personal injury al
legged to have been sustained by her while
on the plank, verdict for $3.50 was rem
dered in her favor.
l.. The plaintiff was one of four ladies
who had accepted the benefits of a free
pass on the defendants steamer to Boston;
aud at the time of the accident the relation
of passenger and carrier between the plain
tiff and defendant had been fully ta5lished.
2. The following condition was printed
on the back of the pass, viz: "The person
who accepts this pass thereby assumes all
risks of personal injury, and loss
or damage of property while using
it," 1t is immateli4l that the plaintiff
was not herself the custodian of the
pass, and did not have actual knowledge of
the terms on which it was granted. She
knew that it wSs a mere gratuity and she
had an opportunity to ascertain if any con-
ditions were attached to the gift. A person
accepting and travelling upon free pass
with conditiors clearly expressed upon it
must be deemed to have acc pied it on sacn
conditions whether he reads them or not
Thi. is elementary doctrine in the law of
contracts.
3. Such a contract with a free passenger,
that he shall ride at his own risk is not
prohibited by any rule of public policy in
this State, but is in harmony with the
principles of justice and common right
md sll the cherished interests of the law.
1t is effectual to exonerat. the carrier from
liability for the negligence of his servants.
The instructions of the presiding justice
were not in accordance v h these principles
and must be held erroneous.
Exceptions sustained. verdict set aside.