Daily Kennebec journal., 1905-12-08
FROM LAW COURT.
Rescripts Received in Cumberland and
Androscosgin County Cases.

Charles w. Jones, clerk of courts for
kennebec county, Thursday. received
rescripts in the Cumberland county
case of Ada I. Raymond VS.. the Port
land Railroad Co. and in the Andros-
coggin county case OF Annie J. Hewey
VS.. the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. The rescripts. drawn by Justice
Spear, were as follows:
Cumberland County.
Ada !. Raymond VS.. Portland Railroad
Co. kescript, Spear, ].
This is an action on the case for
negligence 10 recover for personal i'll
juries to the plaintiff while a passen-
ger OF one Of the cars of the defendant,
street railway corporation. The case
comes up on motion and exceptions.
1t was alleged in the plaintiffs dec
laration and evidence was introduced
by the plaintiff tending to show that
the defendants car had been brought
to Il full stop near the tracks of Il
steam railroad. that the car was start
ed again while the plaintiff was in the
act of alighting therefron and before
she had had sufficient and reasonable
time to alight, whereby she was thrown
and injured.
The defendants offered evidence
tending TO show that the car. an open
ono. Lad come to stop near the point
of intersection with the tracks of the
steam railroad, that 1t was the prac-
tice and custom OF the defendants to
stop there, but the only purpose of the
stop was 10 safeguard the crossing of
the said tracks, it not being a station
or place where {. stop was regularly
made for passengers TO get off the de-
PENDANTS cars. although it was in
evidence that passengers did some
times get off or on the defendants cars
there.
Upon these contentious at the re-
quest of the plaintiffs counsel. the pre-
siding justice gave the following In
struction to the jury: IF you believe
that this was the crossing of tracks.
and that under the practice and GUS
tom of the company. the cars stop at
this crossing and believe that people
get on or off at this place. while cars
are stopped. then it was the duty of
the conductor in charge of the car TO
ascertain for himself whether passen
gers wanted to get on or off; and if he
could by great care discover who
wanted TO get off. whether they want
ed to get off. that would be equivalent
to actual knowledge on the subject"
To this instruction the defendants
SeasOnaDly excepted.
We think the exception must be sus-
taincd The instruction imposed upon
the conductor the duty of exercising
great care" to discover IL any one
wanted 10 get off the car. This in
struction Is not modified by any other
clause in the charge but rather en-
phasized by the statement made i'm
mediatcly before it that "the railroad
was bound to use greater than ordi-
nary care"
We think the law required that the
conductor should have acted only in
the exercise of reasonable care. The
phrase great care" as used in the in
struction was without Limitation. Ii
was left entirely TO the jury to say
what meaning should be attached to |
If. They may have said that it was
the duty of the conductor to inquire Of
every passenger upon his car If they
wished to alight and that IL he failed
10 do this in the exercise Of the duty
reouiring "great care" he was negli-'
yent. Or If so strenuous a duty as to
inouire OF each passenger was not
deemed necessary In the exercise of