Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-12-12
FOR PLAINTIFF.
Verdict Sustainedin Case horn.
ton VS.. Maine State Fair,
Final Disposition Of Fatal Shooting
Accident Of Year Ago.
Some More Reseripts-Law Court
Hearing Knox County Cases.

The supreme court, Thursday, hand
ed down decision sustaining the YER
diet for the plaintiff in the case of
Thornton administrative VS.. the Maine
State Agricultural Society of Lewiston.
At the annual fair of the association
in 1901. the husband of the admins
tratrix. Israel Thornton of Chesterville,
was killed by bullet which was shot
at target in a shooting gallery at
the fair grounds. Suit was instituted
in the supreme judicial court for
Franklin county, sitting at Farming
tor. and verdict was rendered for
the plaintiff, the jury assessing the
damages at $4,000.
The defence carried the case to the
law court OH the ground that the YER
dict was contrary to the law and evil
|dence, and that the damages were ex-
cessive.
The full text of the rescript, drawn
by Justice Savage, is as follows:
Franklin county-Thorn. Admx. vs..
Maine State Agricultural Society. Re-
script by Savage, J.
lit is the duty of an agricultural
society giving one exhibition or fair
~ w I'LL tliC pupIlI are lItNilcu, anu IL.
admission to which a fee is charged, to
use reasonable care to keep its grounds
and the usual approaches to them, so
far as the approaches are under its
control, safe for all who attend the
fair by its invitation.
$50 it is its duty TO use reasonable
care to see that there is no firing of
dangerous firearms upon its grounds.
at such q place and under such cOndi-
tons as to ieopardiZe the life or limb
of any of any Of those whom it has in
Vited to its fair. whether they are for
the time being within the grounds, or
properly within the usual approaches
thereto. outside of the grounds.
3-The fair to which the public
We're invited in this case must be re-
garded as consisting not only of the
exhibits and performances more par
tc,llarly under the defendants own di-
rection, but also, of all the shows. eX-
hibits and attractions of all kinds,
recognized by the defendant and per-
mitted to have space upon its grounds.
At was the duty of this defendant
to use reasonable care, in making al
lotments of space for exhibits, shows
and other features. and in their sub
sequert inspection and supervision, to
see that the safety of the invited pub
lie was not endangered.
SIT is immaterial whether the Occu-
pant Of space so allotted was techni-
cal!y a lessee or a licensee. AS between
the defendant and the invited public,
the duty still remained upon the for
mer Of using reasona BILE care to see
that all of the exhibitive grounds We're
safe; and this duty would be particu-
larly urgent in case of an exhibition or
or sport which might, unless properly
conducted be attended with danger,
such as would be the use of firearms.
Elm this case the defendant society
was giving a fair" 1t had let space
upon its grounds for shooting gallery.
1t is satisfactorily shown that bullet
| fred by a patron of the shooting gal
| Iery. while at target practice. missed
the target. passed through the fence
enclosing the eXhibitive grounds. and
| struck and killed the plaintiffs intes-
| tate. who was then standing upon the
railroad platform outside of the
grounds.
| While this platform was neither
| owned nor controlled by the defendant
! it was one of the usual approaches tC
| its grounds: and it is the opinion of the
| court. that there was sufficient EVIL
dence TO justify the jury in finding that
| the deceased at the time when and
mace where he was killed was within
the scope of the defendants invitation
to the public to attend the fair and
| therefore that the defendant owed him
| the duty Of using reasonable care fol-
his safety as before stated.
| Sit appeared that the only rifles and
cartridges in use at the gallery at the
tire of the fatal shooting were Rem
inston magazine rifles, and Union Me-
tallic Cartridge Company's y calibre
short cartridges-admittcd danger
Gus.
9-The court is of opinion that 1t is
not clearly shown that the jury erred
in finding that the defendant failed to
exercise due care in the premises, either
by letting space for a shooting gallery
| where this one was. or in not sufficient
Iy inspecting and supervising the gal
lery afterwards. or both.
lo-The damages awarded are not
deemed so clearly excessive as to JUS
tify the interposition of the court.
| Received Dec. IL. 1862
1 Motion oyerrpled.