Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-02-29
Decisions Handed Down
from Supreme Bench.
Joseph Dennis Gets New Trial,
but Mrs. Dennis Doesn't.


The following rescripts have been
handed down:
Joseph Denis. VS.. Lewiston, Bruins
wick G. Bath Street Railway. Josephine
Denis VS.. Same. Rescript by White
house. J.
In these actions brought by husband
and wife respectively to recover dam
ages for injuries received in collision
Of the plaintiffs team with the de-
fendant's car at public street juno
ton, 1t appeared that the plaintiffs
drove into a public street in a sleigh
In the evening and before crossing the
DEFENDANTS railroad looked up the
track of which thew had an unob-
structed view for 40 rods to see II
car was coming and none In sight
They drove across the track and down
tho street by the side Of the track FOR
% rods and without again looking or
listening for an approaching car,
turned to cross the railroad track at
the junction of two streets, When the
defendants car struck their team and
caused the injuries in question. The
car was going at the rate Of IA miles
and hour on q descending grade and
the motorman saw the team when
the car was Is rods from the street
crossing and sounded the gong, but the
speed Of the car was not slackened
until the power was reversed only 80
feet from the crossing. The plaintiffs
did not hear the sound of the gong and
drove along down the street in ignor-
ance Of the rapidly approaching car
and gave no indication Of purpose to
cross the tracks at the junction until
they arrived at point 30 near the
junction that 1t was not possible for the
mOtorman to stop the car in season to
proven a collision. Held:
!. That those operating street cars
and travellers with teams have equal
rights en- the highway; that the rights
OF each class must be exercised with
due regard to the rights Of the other,
proper consideration being given to
the difference in motive power and to
the fact that the cars run on & fixed
track and RAPIDLY acquire a greater
momentum; that all who have occasion
to use the highways whether by the old
or new modes Of travel are governed
BY the same rule Of reasonable use and
reasonable care.
2. That in view Of the frequency
with which teams in the ordinary
course of travel and traffic must pass
across the highway at public street
functions. the motorman of n car when
approaching these functions is required
to exercise due care and vigilance ac-
cording to the eaigencies of the situa-
ton TO have his car under such control
In anticipation Of the crossing Of teams
that 1t may be stopped at a junction in
season to prevent a collision with
teams that may suddenly turn to drive
over the track.
That the conclusion OF the jury
cannot be declared manifestly wrong
in finding that the defendants SER
wants In charge of the car at the time
In question failed to exercise that de-
gree Of vigilance and precaution in
slackening the speed Of the car and
keeping 1t under control that the plain
exigencles OF the situation required.
4. That while 1t cannot be declared
as a matter of law that 1t is negligence
rer 90 for traveller to cross a street
railway track without first looking and
reasonable AMI ordinary care, pru-
dence and vigilance to avoid a COLI
sion and thu exercise of this degree of
care may impose upon him ir many
situations the duty to look and listen
for an approaching car before attempt
Ing t. cross the track; that he must do
for his own safety and for the safety
OF the passengers in the car. what or
dinarily thoughtful and prudent per-
sans ais accustomed to do under like
circumstances
'5 That, II the plaintiff. Joseph Den
H. had stopped his eeam and listened
before attempting to cross tho track t
the Junction, the sound Of the ap-
preaching car must have been heard
by him; that II he had glanced up the
track the headlight Of the car would
have appeared to his unobstructed
vision; that with an absence Of care
diff'cult to explain or comprehend. he
deliberately attempted to cross the
track without stopping to listen or
turning to look and that in this respect
there was a failure of duty on his part
and he mus: be deemed guilty Of con-
tributory negligence.
o. mat the defendants negligence
cannot be deemed subsequent to and
Independent OF the plaintiffs contribu-
tory negligence and the doctrine of pri-
or and subsequent negligence does not
apply; that the defendants negligence
was contemporaneous and concurrent
with the plaintiffs and not subsequent
to 1t and that the plaintiffs negligence
actively continued from its commence
ment to the moment of the collision
and that the verdict In favor Of Jo-
seph Denis was not authorized by the
evidence and must therefore be set
aside
=. That the negligence of the husband
was not legally imputable to the wife;
that she was responsible only for her
own conduct and not necessarily for the
neshgence Of her husband; that It salts
Mctorily appears from all OF the evidence
tnat she neither assumed nor felt any
responsibility for the management and
control Of the. team and deferred entire
y to the judgment and experience Of her
husband ard that she was not ,ust,v
chargeable With culpable negligence for
falling to look or listen for an approach.
Ing car or for any other acts of omission
or commission on her part connected with
AI,.N