Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-05-04
Law Court Sets Aside
$4,000 Verdict
In Case Of Fred c. Ti|Ison VS..
Maine Central.
Collision at WaterviIIe in 1904
Cause OF Til

The decision of the law court. setting
aside the verdict of So. POS for Fred c.
Tillson of Vassalboro against the Maine
Central Railroad Co, granted by jury
in the supreme judicial court, was
handed down Friday. A new trial is or
dered.
The case arose out of injuries sus-
tanned by Tlllson. fireman on the road
II collision between two engines il
II" Natc"Nilie yards Feb. IS. 1904 The
SIT r"l damages was begun Nov. 81
'"' the "a damnum being fixed al
$4,000. Immediately upon the an
nouncement, counsel for the defendant
corporation filed motion for new tria
on the ground that the verdict was OK
cessive. The case was argued before
the law court in the December term
1906, by Forrest Goodwin of Skowhcgai
for the plaintiff and Orvile d. Baker
for the defendant.
The rescript, drawn by Justice White
house, is as follows:
The plaintiff obtained a verdict o
s25,208 for injuries received by hin
Feb. IS, 1904, in a collision in the Wat
erville yard between the defendant.
engine No. &C and freight train No. A
on which the plaintiff was fireman.
It IS conceded that on the evening o
the accident the eXigency existing a
the time the plaintiffs train was ap
preaching Waterville on the west
called for the display of the red light o
the semaphore as the signal for dan
ger; ana IL Is not in controversy that il
the collision was caused solely by the
negligence Of the switch tender in fail
ling scaSpnably to change the Semaphort
| signal of green to red. or by a wan
| of duo diligence and attention on tht
part Of the engineer Of the train il
| failing to observe the rcd light. if sea
| sonably Gisplayed. it would in each i'll
| stance be the result of the negligence
| Of Il fellow servant and the dcfCndan
company would not be liable for thu
unfortunate consequence to the plain
| tiff.
| With respect both to the original con
| struction ana subsequent maintenance
Of the Scmaphorc, the defendant wa:
| bound to exercise due care to have sucf
| a permanent adjustment Of it tina
when the liant, II was kept in Il sulta
lie working order and properly Sc pl
| the opcrator, it would send a true an(
not a false message down the line. Du
| whether or not the lantern was 80 Sc
at the time of the collision that 1t de'
| cciycd the engineer on the plalntlll
| train. is not the conclusive test OF tht
| defendants li"bility for the reason al
rcaGy suggested that such condition
might have been occasioned by the
| NEGLIGENCE Of a fellow servant.
The scmaphOre mast was located OF
| n curve Of the railroad track east o
Front street crossing but it satlsfac
| toriIv appears from the evidence ina
when the lantern was set at the angie
| cirimed bN the witnesses for the pam
| tiff as we'll as at the angle claimed DA
| the defendant. the signal light thfoWl
| down the line of the road could pc dlS
| tinctIv seen at a distance of 13JO zee
| from the Semaphorc by the engineer o
q train approaching at q rate OF speed
Al which the plaintiffs train was ap
preaching on tho evening IN question:
| that the light would remain III tuil view
| for Il distance OF about 600 1eet; INA
| thn view was then ohstructed by th'
| forward portion of the engine running
Oh an ascending grade. for distance
Of 40 feet. when the signal is agau
| r,ainIv visible for the remaining DIS
tauc.. Of about 80 feet.
IN support Of his contention that tht
| lantern was permanently set at such al
angle with the track that it either
showed the opposite color from that in