Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-02-27
COMPANY LIABLE,
Continued from Page One.)

other respects in the exercise OF due
care. il the act. however carefully per
formed was not negligence Der Sc.
It also appeared that upon the back
OF each seat i'll leSible letters plain
to De seer were the words. Avoid ac-
cident: wal; until the car stops"
For the purpose Of this case 4 legal
location may also be concs ded.
Under the evidence three questions
were sabtnitted 70 the jury
% Was he defc ndant negligent?
90 Was the piHinlitI's inIcytate guilty
of c"ntriLu:ory negligence" e, The
assessment ii damages. 1t is admitted
that the amount Of damages if main
t;t.nALir is reasonable No further al
iuSgon therefore will be made to the
question OF damages The jury found
upon tho other questions that the de-
fcnGInt was guilty of negligence. and
that tho d"Cttt~nt was not guilty of
contributory negligence, or. atfir1na-
lively stated. was in the exercise Of
due care.
WIS the defendant negligentA
Tie defendant emphaticalIy urges
I!.dt t'lt th!Iklb lftNN III the cast
that III, dcce,lent was voluntarily
moving by way OF The running board
from. one seat in the ear to ;lonther.
was evidence. per Sc. of negligence: an
act winch the defendant could not be
reasonably held to have anticipated;
while the location and use Of the pole
upon which he was injured. We're facts
which TIE defendant should have held
to have. ANTICIPATED ana that. vonse-
puently. ~" verdict "f the jury. adj
mittir. I'll tie facts 10 b. true. was
erroneous i'll INV. Held;
! 1t is too marrow q construction and
against gnoi public policy. to hold
that il is negligence r"r Sc. on the
| Dart ot Il pass, niger riding on a trolley
| car. not 70 anticipate that It pole may
| lie permitted to stand 50 near thu. rail-
| road track thai EC c2Ennt, ~ an erect
position and careful manner. pass from
one seat in the car 10 another over the
| rtnnin? board without danger Of in
jury n.nn collision With such pole
| Tile defendant is !: i,uric corporation.
Ii receives All its privileges; from tile
pubic Ii depends upon the I,iiElic for
its income Ii invites ana induces III
/ pubic 10 ilttt ui)bIl L. Gel ~ Niit ~
parience, makes ii familiar with Tie rab-
it's OF reoi,,e so riding ana with their
natural tert.tncy. with or without reason.
| to noe FROM seat IT, sat With lis
| spccia! means of knowledge K should be
held To anticipate what is even 4 matter
of common Knowledge, That q passenger
riding upon one Of its cars mas. ~ any
place along tht. lin ana while the car
is III motion undertake I" change his
seat. Who has not done it? II establish
| IS a safer rule of law. I" .qui.e street
| railroads TO exercise a Gt-l"e Of care
sufficient fer the pr0lc Of tE-iG pas
ScnSJrS with respect to poles and other
obstacles along; their rights ol way Y he"
such protection involves only 4 question
of rcc'uia:y outlay. than to hold thai
such railroad may he permitted. fur The
mere purpose II :tvin:; expenditure. t.
continue thu in3intcnan Of Z structure
which may be calculated sooner OF lalel
10 result i'll the injury or death Of 4
pass niger.
MOI only is his rulA BASED upon reason
ana good public policy, INT it is The wei
settled law.
Our conclusion upon this point is thai
street railway; to owe ttcir passengers
Il dpty with respect To tn" proximity t.
tie track Of poles and other permanent
stru, lures and that whether il. case %
an aiury to one Of their passengers hI
coming in contact with pole or "theI
structure. Tie defendant was negligent II
thr location ana maintenance thereof. i
a question Of fact for The JURY
Tie chartered rights Of the defendant
the location Of It's tracks and p"l'S By
the city. and approval Of the san" bV th'
railroad commissioners. WtT" al ~"
ce"hingS. assuming then to h" in al! /"
spccts legal. intended To h"stoW unon th'
defendant the right to exist, net To lie
strov They were calculated To c0nf,I
unon il the right 10 exercise Ill the priv
, ilg2es Of it's franchise but not in,munit'
from its negligence.
Tie verdict Of the jury uron the qucs
ton of tic defendants rcgligcnc" WA
iullv warranted ~ the evidence am
clearly right
!, CO. Was the plaintiffs intostat" guilt!
Of contrihutory negligence:
Ne have already suggested that tn
jay was authorized TO liner crom tE
evidence that the plaintiffs intc"t5i" il
attempting to move from one seat in tn
car to another was standing erect upnl
tho running board when struck by tn
pole anG in AZ! other respect. in ,he IS
erCisc oi due care
Thn drfendant, however contards ;hi
admitting MI the facts al.d I'M renee
found ny the jury to be true, yet III
deccdent was guilty in law of negligence
per Sc. i'll standing Upon the tunnin
beard rs the "viG"nco shows Il" G.,i. S2v
eral states in the union mold that il
negligence. pr 81. t. rid" upon the plat
form on running hoard of - moving cHl
bat = large ma oritv Of IN" states, in
Guiding Maine. have taken a Ciffc.en
vicv. ana mold tha, whether such con
! duct constitutes contlihrtoiN nnEliGcn"
must ha regarded as question of fac
for Tho determination Of tho jury.
Tire defence that the plaintiffs intos
% G@NazzEasSxxz II 3