Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-03-15
FOUR REScRlPTS.
DECISIONS Handed Down from the su.
preme Court.

SsuS SOOTI.
Maxheld vs. Railroad Co. Rescrint
by Whitehouse, ].
Ihls was an action to recover DAM
t'ses iof personal injury which the
p.aiiltiH sustained by clipping on the
pia'Iorm at Newhail Station in the
town OF WindEem as she was WALKING
from the station loor to the cars for
'he purpose OF taking the morninp
.ialh 10 Wes-hrook. 1t is alleged in
her declaration that this platform had
negiigently been allowed to remain
covered with ice in the line of tray.I
from the door Of the station tn tho
cars, and had thereby been rendered
sllppery and dangerous for passenpers
having occasion to walk ever il for ~
purpose of entering or leaving the car
AT the time of the accidan, ~,
plaintiff had purcha sed her ticker for
WestbroOk AMI The relation of carri9r
ana passenger had been full estab-
lished between her and the defendant
company. She vas then entitled to the
care ana protection of its servants.
But great variety OF terms have haen
ehhpioSed by different courts and law
NiltSfS 70 express the nature and ex-
tent Oh Inc obligation cue from carriers
10 passengers unde.' such circun
stances. In The actuai TRANSPORTATION
OF passengers, common carriers are re-
qulfed by public policy and safety to
exercise the highest degree of care CON.
s:Stent with the buSint IS il, which tbay
are engaged. They are required 10 do
all that human care, vigilance ana
foresight can do under the circum-
stances considering the character and
mode of conveyance, to prevent acct
dent to passengers. BAT the standard
recognized by law is that of ordinary
care with resp ct to the eXigencies of
the particular case; ana the standard
By which to determine whether a ner-
son has been guilty OF negligence is
the conduct of a prudent, careful or
diiigent man.
In view of the great peril involved in
the transportation Of passengers by
steam railways, a very high degree of
vigilance, foresight and skill is re-
CURED to fill the measure of ordinary
care III order 70 pre.cnt accident and
INJURY. So with respect to the duty
owed 10 the passenger on the platform
g. the railway station, TIE company is
required to exercise ordinary care for
Inc protection and safety of a paSsen-
ger IN that SitultiOn but it is obvious
fEat different pf ecautionS and safe
guards and 4 less degree OF skill and
foresight may be sufticien: to meet the
requirements Of ordinary care under
those circumstances Many courts.
however, have used the same phras >
ology to describe The duties of the
| carrier to the passenger whether on
the platform or in the ears. But the
correct principle obviously is that il
all cases the amount of care bestowed
must be equal to thu emergency, how
ever the standard may be denomi-
mated.
II was the duty then Of the defend
ant company to exercise all ordinary
care to maintain the platform in ques-
ton in such L reasonably safe and
suitable condition that passengers who
We're themselves IN the exercise of
ordinary care could walk over it in
safety. If the plaintiffs contention
| was correct, that at the time and place
OF the accident. there wa; coating OF
ice on the platform partially covered
with slush. it would not be contended
that such condition vas Il reasonably
passengers. There was sufficient eVi-
dence i'll behalf OF the plaintiff if
'tccepted as true, to support this con-
tentiOn. That evidence. vas not in
itself 50 unreasonable or improbable or
50 overborne by undisiuted facts that
this court would be warranted in re-
iecting it as incredible The evidence
being conflicting, il was the province
of the jury 10 decide thu, tontroVerteI
question Of fact. They evidently
accepted the plaintiffs version as cor
| lect. They drew their conclusion not
simply from the words OF the VII
nesscS. but from Their manner aud
bearing as VII. and we do not feel
Justified in de, la,ing that their con-
ciusioh WAS manifcstly wrong. The
conduct OF the plaintiff appears to
have been that of reasonably prudent
people undo: lika circumstances
There VAS no want Of ordinary care
CI her part.
Nor are the damages c,isproportion-
.ile to the injury.