Daily Kennebec journal., 1903-08-21
MUST KEEP TO RIGHT,
Law Court So Decides in Impo. tant
Androscoggin Case.
Case of 3. G. M. VS.. saco Valley r. r.
Goes Back to r. r. Commissioners.

| couItS, IhulSudy, received de-
cisions in two important cases. one
of them was an Androscoggin case, ir
which an accident resulted from a col
| lision in a highway. The court main
| tains that persons must keep to the
right in passing and sends the case to
| jury for determination, if there was
| negligence and damage done. The re-
scripts follow:
ANDROSCOGGINC CASE.
Charlotte A. Neal VS.. Daniel H.
Randall by Powers, J.-When no per-
son is passing, or about to pass in an
opposite direction, one may travel
upon any part of the travelled road
which suits his pleasure or con
venience, but when teams are ap-
preaching to meet, the law requires
them to seasonably turn to the right of
the middle of the travelled part of the
road, SO far that they can pass each
other without interference.
"Seasonably turn" means that the
travellers shall turn to the right in
such season that neither shall be re-
tarded in his progress by reason of
the other occupying his half of the
way, which the law has assigned to his
use when he may have occasion to use
it in passing.
Failure to comply with this require
ment is not negligence per Sc. Negli-
gence and casual connection are ordi-
nary questions of fact.
Upon the question of causation an
important consideration is whether the
injury suffered was one which it was
the purpose of the law to prevent when
it imposed upon the defendent the
duty which he was charged With hay
ing violated.
In this case the defendent was on the
wrong side of the road, in violation of
4 law enacted for the safety and con-
Venience of travellers and to prevent
collisions. A collision occurred and
the plaintiff, a traveller, was injured.
The evidence tends to show that the
defendant saw the plaintiff approach
ing, that there was ample time for him
to turn to the right of the middle of
the travelled part of the road, that there
was nothing to prevent his so doing,
and that had he done so there would
have been no collision and no injury.
Held, that under these circumstances
it should be submitted to a jury to say
whether the defendant was in fact neg
ligent, and if SO, whether such negli-
gence was the proXimate cause of the
plaintiffs injury.
Case to stand for trial
YORK CASE.
Boston q Maine Railroad, applicant
from decision of railroad commission
ers VS.. Saco Valley Slectric Railroad.
tescript by Powers, j: Under our
statute the whole question of how
railroad crossings shall be constructed
and maintained is left, in the first in
stance, to the sound judgment and
discretion of the railroad commission
ers for determination; = and their de-
cision when made is final, unless an
appeal is taken.
They have no authority to modify or
change such a decree once made, eX-
cept upon application, notice and hear
ing; nor can they, before appeal, make
temporary decree which does not
purpOrt to represent their sound judg-
ment and discretion in the premises.
Such temporary decree is void.
Case committed to board of railroad
commissioners for proceedings in ac-
cordance with opinion.