The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1907-07-18
Do Auto mobiles Have the Same
Rights in Maine Highways as
Other Vehicles?
A Test Case Recently Heard Before the
Full Bench at Portland

Ill the law COURT w eulesQdN at
Portland the Somerset county case of
Frank ?. Towle of Palmyra against
Edwin n. Morse of Boston was taken
up. 1t comes before the law court
on the motion of Mr.. Morse to set
aside verdict for the plaintiff in a
suit for damages caused, it is alleged,
by want of care on his part while
using an automobile. Fred F. Law
renee of the firm of Gould a. Law
ence of Skowhegan represented the
defendant, Mr.. Morse, and Harry K.
Coolidge of the firm of Manson x
Coolidge, Pittsfield, appeared for the
plaintiff. Mr.. Lawrence in his ar
gument made statement of material
facts substantially agreed 10 by Mr..
Morse.
Last summer Mr. Morse and his
friend, Mr.. Whitman, were in Palmyra
and on their way in the direction of
Palmyra village in large two-seated
touring car automobile. They were
met by the plaintiff, Mr.. Towle, who
with his sister, Mrs. Prescott, was
riding in the direction of Pitts
field. When within short distance
Mr.. Towle said 100 feet and Mr..
Morse and Mr.. Whitman said 500 feet
of each other, Mr.. Towle saw the
automobile. 1t is agreed that Mr..
Towle or Mrs. Prescott, or both, gave
the statutory signal to stop by raising
the hand. Mr.. Morse does not deny
that he saw this signal and admits
that he did not stop Immediately, but
claims that he believed he had and
as a matter of fact did have, ample
time in which to reach the driveway
leading up to the house of Robt. r.
Kierstead. 1t was in evidence that
the driveway forked, one fork lead
ing in the direction of Palmyra and
the other in the direction of Pittsfield
and in the open space between the
forks there was post and rural
mail box. Mr.. Morse brought his
machine around, circled the mail box
reversed its position and brought 1t
to stop. He then took a pail he
borrowed the previous day of Mrs.
Kirstead and went with it to the back
door, leaving Mr.. Whitman in the
car. According to Mrs. Kierstead he
remained in conversation for some
two or three minutes. During that
time the accident on which the suit
was founded occurred.
According to Mr.. Towle just before
he reached the automobile he said to
Mr.. Whitman: I'm what direction
are you going?" And if Mr.. Whit
man made any reply he did not hear
it. On his part Mr.. Whitman says
that Mr.. Towle said TO him: "When
do you propose to start?" and that he
replied: I'm a minute or two" His
horse was FESTIVE and Mr.. Towle got
out of the wagon and attempted TO
lead it by the automobile. The ami
NAL SHE'D, Mr.. Towle was thrown to.
the ground and shoulder was dislo
Gated. Mrs. Prescott, who held the
reins, halted the horse. Up to this
time Mr.. Lawrence practically stated
the case for both parties.
The plaintiff based his action on
three gations-that the defendant
did not stop when the signal was
given, that the defendant halted the
car in the middle of the road and that
he did not shut off the engine. The
travelled part of the road, the part
contemplated by the law of the road,
was but eight feet wide and the attor-
neys for the plaintiff insisted that Mr..
Morse did not use due care. The pre-
siding Justice at the hearing in Som
erset county instructed the jury that
as Mr.. Morse did halt before the acct
dent his failure to do SO Immediately
did not cause it and the verdict was
based, as Mr.. Coolidge claims on the
position of the machine and the noise
of the engine but as Mr.. Lawrence in
the prejudice of a jury in an
county against the inva-
sion of their territory by automobiles
warped their Judgment.
First of all Mr.. Lawrence insisted
that an automobile is as far as the
law of the road is concerned, team,
that it is a proper vehicle of trans
portation and that an automobile of
the road has the same right as a
horse. He denied that the automobile
was in the middle of the road and
even if be admitted, as he did not,
that it projected into the middle of
the road he still claimed that Mr..
Tcwle had nine feet of the road and
that had he chosen to have done SO
he might have driven into the drive
way and waited for the machine to
pass on. He denied that there was
any clicking noise whatever and on
that point Mr.. Morse said that the
sound of his engine was like the APP
preciable noise of clock and could
not have been heard at distance of
five feet. But admitting that there
was a noise that the automobile pro-
jected into the road and that Mr..
Morse erred in leaving Mr.. Whitman
alone in the car without stopping the
engine, he still claimed contributory
on the part of Mr.. Towle
He said that Mr.. Towle ought not to
have left the carriage but that if he
had he ought to have been between
the horse and the automobile because
it must have been evident that if the
horse SHE'D at all it would be from
and not to the automobile.
He defended Mr.. Morse from the
charge of negligence and insisted
that the statutory signal is for sim
gle purpose; that the raised hand of
the person in the carriage indicates
to the one in the automobile that he
must stop. But the statutory signal
and the law of the road does not
require the stopping OF the engine,
because that would seriously inter
fere with the use of the automo-
bile. Mr.. Lawrence claimed that the
law regulating the use of steam and
more especially electric cars, must be
applied to automobiles, that an auto
mobile is proper vehicle to use on
the highway and that the right to
use it carries with it the right to
make any necessary noise. He insist
ed that this was the only logical view
to take of the case. He denied the
existence of any moral obligation on
the part of Mr.. Morse to do more than