Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-07-19
THE Law COURT
Hands Down Decisions
in Important Cases.
Verdict Stands in Kennebec Case
Beedy vs.. Maine Central.
In Ella n. Bsedy and Lydia Wood Verticts
Restricted 10 $4,000 and $4,000.


handed down by the law court.
kennebec county.-Lydia w. Wood
vs.. Maine Central Railroad Co.
Ella NJ. Beedy VS.. Maine Central Rail-
road Co.
Arthur f. Beedy VS.. Maine Central
Railroad Co.
Spear. J.-These three actions are for
personal injuries against the Maine
Central Railroa Co. They came up on
motion and exceptions They all grow
out of the same accident and depend
upon the same state of facts. The
parties to the accident were two wo-
men, passengers for hire in a mail
stage with the driver Of the stage
which was struck by 4 freight train of
four cars running backwards and push
ed across public crossing whereby the
women were severely injured.
1t is not contrOvcrted that two of the
plaintiffs were lawfully travelling Oh
Alden steet. public highway in Wa
terville, that crosses the yard of the
defendant company connecting Ticonic
street and College avenue.
The third suit was by the husband
of one of the injured plaintiffs. The
defendant commended as a matter of
law that the two plaintiffs riding in the
public carriage were responsible for the
same care that would be imposed upon
them by law had they been driving the
carriage themselves. The justice, how
ever, trying the cas- instructed the jury
that they were responsible under the
rule of ordinary car having reference
to all tn facts and circumstances in the
case. We think this instruction was
correct.
The other exception related to an cx-
preston of the justice which the de-
PENDANT claimed gave too much empha-
sis to certain testimony of the plain
tiffs. This exception must also be over
ruled.
The jury by their verdict found that
the defendant was negligent in the use
of its cars at the crossing and that the
plaintiffs We're in the exercise of prop
or care.
While in this reScript we cannot, in
the space allotted to a rescript, give
the reasons therefor, yet we have ar
rived at the conclusion that the motion
for new trial must be overruled up
on the question of liability. We are of
the opinion. however, that the jury
clearly erred in the assessment of dam
ages.
The verdict in favor of the plaintiff
Ella NJ. Beedy. was $9S66.33; in favor of
the plaintiff, Arthur E. Becdy, her hus-
band, for the loss of the comfort, as
sistance, services. society and benefit OF
his wife, on account of her injuries and
for expenses paid in her behalf, $f20i.66;
in favor Of Lydia w. Wood, s155S92.
The compensation to which the huS-
band is entitled as damages on account
of the injuries received by his wife are
more susceptible of computation than
that of either of the other plaintiffs.
The evidence shows that at the time
of the trial he had already expended
about $1,000 on account of the accident,
and will undoubtedly be obliged for a
long time at least to be under constant
expense to supplement the household
duties which could have been perform
ed by his wife but for her injuries, be-
sides possible expense of medical at
tendance and medicine. While this YER
dict is a very large one under the cir
cumstanceS of the case, yet in view of
the contingencies that may arise on ac-
count of the injuries received by the
plaintiffs wife, we are inclined to let
this verdict stand. Our conclusion is
that the plaintiff, Ella NJ. Beedy, should
remit the amount of her verdict above
$4,000. and hat Lydia w. Wood should
remit the amount of her verdict above
$4,000, otherwise, new trial is granted
in each case.
Motion oveIrulcd as to the plaintiff,
Arthur f. Beedy.
Exceptions overruIed. Motion sus-
tanned in case of Ella Nj. Bcedy and
Lydia w. Wood, unless plaintiffs file a
remttcr for all of their respective YER
diets above $4,000 and $45OO within 80
days from the date of the rescript in
this case.