Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-12-10
ResCript Handed Down by
Justice Whitehouse.
Interesting Ruling In Case Of
Auto vs.. Team.
Action Of Chauffeur In Case De.
cIared Essence Of Negligence"


| house Monday, is of more than ordinary
| interest. inaslnuch as it concerns q case
i'll which a team and a motor car met
on public highway and the driver of
! the motor car disregarded the statu-
tory signal to stop when given by the
driver of the team:
Somerset county. Frank +. Towlc vs..
Edwin NJ. Morse, Rcscript, White
house. J.
In an action TO recover damages for
Il personal injury received by the plain
tiff as result of the alleged failure
of duty on the part of the defendant
towards him in the use and manage
ment Of his automobile on the public
highway. tie following facts appear:
The plaintiff and his sister were rid
ing in an open wagon drawn by one
horse aud discovering the canopy top
of an approaching automobile ill which
the defendant and a companion were
travelling, they gave the statutory sig
nal by raising the hand for the auto
mobile to stop. The defendant disrr-
Sarded the signal to stop and ran the
automobile out Of the highway two or
three rods into a dooryard. The plain
tiff was thereby induced to believe that
he could drive along in safety, but the
automobile unexpectedly turned and re.
appeared in the highway directly i'll
front al iii" plaintiff frightening his
horse and causing the injury of which
he complains
Both the plaintiff and defendant had
a right to use the highway with their
respective vehicles. and it was the
duty nC each to exercise his right with
due regard to the corresponding right ;
of the other With respect 10 the
methods; Of travel and transportation
on the highway. as in all other spheres
of action. the law seeks TO adapt it
self to the new conditions arising from
the progress of invention and discovery.
The ordinary highway is open to all
suitable methods Of use and autOmO-
biles are now recognized as legitimate
means Of conveyance on sucn high
ways. The fact that horses unaccus
toned To seeing them are likely to be
frightened by tho unusual sound and
appearance of them. has not been
deemed sufficient reason for prohibiting
their use but it is an element in the
question of due care on the part of the
drivers Of both horses and motor cars,
and q consideration to be entertained
in determining whether such care has
been exercised to avoid accident and
injury IN the eXigencieS of the particu-
lar situa ton.
If the defendant had regarded the
plaintiffs signal and promptly stop
ped his machine. the plaintiff would
have had an opportunity to drive into
the dooryard himself as he intended to
do. If the defendant had kept his car
stationary for few seconds in the
dooryard. the plaintiff could have driv-
en- along the highway in safety. The
defendant did neither Of these things;
but having induced the plaintiff to be-
licve that the car would remain beyond
the area of danger, he suddenly reap
pears with it in front of the plaintiff
partly in the highway. His eXplana-
ton OF this extraordinary management
of his car is that the team was so far
up the road that it had passed out Of
his mind. This must he deemed thought
less inattention on his part, and
"thoughtless inattention'' has been de-
clared by this court to be the essence
of negligence" Held:
That the defendants thoughtless in
attention under the circumstances stat
ed was a failure of duty on his part
toward the plaintiff and the proXimatc
cause Of the injury, and that a verdict
in favor OF the plaintiff was warranted
by the evidence.
Motion ovcrruled
Received Dec g. 1897.