The Somerset reporter., 1907-05-09
A Somerset Verdict Set Aside.
Case Fred Tillson VS. M. C. R. R.

Case Fred Tillson VS. M C. R. R.
The Law court Thursday handed
down rescript in the case of Fred c.
Tillson versus the Maine Central
Railroad company, sustaining the
motion of the defendant, setting aside
the verdict and granting a new trial.
The plaintiff obtained a verdict for
$50, 20s for injuries received by him
Feb. ID, 1904, in a collision at the Wa
terville yard of the Maine Central
Railroad company between the de-
fendant's engine No. 66 and freight
train No. Al, On which the plaintiff
was fireman.
The case was tried in the Supreme
Judicial court for this county at the
March term 1905, and the amount of
damage was the largest ever returned
by a jury in this State.
The rescript drawn by Justice
Whitehouse, says in part: at is the
duty of a railroad company, with re-
spect both to the original construction
and subsequent maintenance of a
semaphore, to exercise due care to
have such permanent adjustment of
it that when the lantern is kept in
suitable working order and properly
set by the operator, it will display the
correct signal to the engineer of an
approaching train, but when a loco
motive fireman is injured by COLI
sion between his engine and another,
and such collision is caused by the
negligence of the switch tender in
failing seasonably to change the sema-
phore signal from green to red, or by
a want of due vigilance and attention
on the part of the engineer of his
train in failing to observe the red
light, if reasonably displayed, it must
in each instance be deemed the re-
suit of the negligence of fellow ser
want and the railroad company is not
liable for the tireman's injury.
"In the action by locomotive fire.
man against a railroad company to
recover damages for an injury re
ceived in a collision alleged to have
resulted from the failure of the de-
PENDANT company to locate the sema-
phore in a suitable place and adjust
it at proper angle, it appeared in
evidence that the semaphore was
permanently set at such angle that
the signal light thrown down the
road could be distinctly seen at a
distance of 1850 feet from the soma
phore by the engineer of an approach
ing train, that the light would remain
in full view for a distance of about
$50 feet; that the view was then OBJ
structed by the forward portion of the
engine running on an ascending grade
for distance of $50 feet when the
signal was again plainly visible for
the remaining distance of about $50
feet. 1t also appeared that the rays
of light emitted through the double
convex lense of the semaphore Ian
tern were SO conveyed that the angle
of refaction was less than Is degrees
from parallel line, and that without
this tense the RAYS would have been
dispersed at an angle of so degrees
Held That in view of the immuta-
BILE law thatlight must always traverse
space in direct lines, and the fact that
the red and green lights of the soma
phOre lanterns are at all times pre-
cisely at right angles to each other
it was impossible that the same light,
adjusted at the same angle, should
exhibit clear red to one observer
ion of red and green to the third, I'M
der precisely the same conditions
and that oral testimony in direct con
PREVENTION to natural laws must bt
deemed incredible.
eld:-That if the semaphore wa,
seasonably set red it must have sem
down the line the danger sigma
which the engineer in the exercise o.
proper vigilance could no have fail
ed to distinguish; that the collision
resulted either from the engineers
failure of duty in this behalf, or from
the failure of the semaphore tender
to change the signal from green tc
red until moment before the COLI
sion when it was too late for the en-
gineer to stop the train in season tc
prevent it, and that in either event
the grevious injury to the plaintiff
was caused by the negligence of fel'
low servant and the liability of the
defendant company is not establish
ed"