Daily Kennebec journal., 1908-12-25
DAILY KENNEBEC JOURNAL FRIDAY DECEMBER 25 1903

ing Of Oct. 1G. 1907, the plaintiffs ser
want hitched his team to an electric
light pole standing next the sidewalk
on Main street in Lewiston. In some
manner unexplained, the morse became
unfastened and walked toward the CEN
ter of the street and so near to the de-
fendants' tracks that when a car Of the
defendant company came along on its
way to the head of Lisbon street, it
struck the horse as he turned his head
towards the car and injured him SC
that he died Immediately. The run
ming time of the car, which was a local,
between the Fair grounds and Lisbon
street, was at the rate of IL miles per
hour. without making allowance for
stops. The place where the acciden
occurred was in residential portion OF
the city The street was lined with
trees which the defendant claimed
rendered the spot dark because of the
foliage, but in midi October the dark
ening effect could not have been as
great as in midsummer, and the plain
tiff proved by the testimony of wit
ness who kept a weather record that
at that particular hour, the moon,
two days past its first quarter, was
shining in a cloudless sky The car
was equipped with headlight but the
evidence tends to show that it was
somewhat insufficient.
The jury have found by their verdict
under instructions by. the presiding
Judge to which no exceptions have been
taken, that there was want Of due
care On the part of the defendants
servant in charge of the car and no
want Of due care on the part of the
plaintiff. There was a sharp conflict of
evidence as to the speed but the pre-
nlcrance rather favors the plaintiffs s
contention that the car was running
unusually fast, which means consider
ably more than II miles an hour. The
anxiety OF the motorman himself
seems to have been to make his time
The speed at which he. could run and
still be within the line of his duty to
persons or property upon the street
must of course depend upon the cir
dNmstances upon which he was run
ming at the time. The darkness, if it
existed at that point, imposed upon
him greater vigilance and perhaps the
duty of lessening the speed in order
avoiding collision. If the darkness did
not exist, it would seem as if he could
.lave seen the team in ample season to
have avoided it. 1t is true that the
travelling public demand rate of
speed that is sometimes dangerous,
and that the motornan is not to as
sumo that teams without drivers will
be roaming about the streets. The pre-
Use issue here, however, was whether
the motorman at that particular tin:
and place under all the circumstance S,
saw or ought to have seen the condi-
lions, and had or ought to have had
+uch control Of the car as to avoid the
accident.
The jury reached the conclusion that
he failed to exercise that degree OF
vigilance in slackening the speed of the
car or i'll watching for obstacles ahead,
hat the plain exigencies OF the sitla-
ton demanded, and q careful study of
The evidence on this point fails to CON
vince the court that the verdict was
dearly wrong. Nor We're the jury man
festly wrong in finding that there was
no want of ordinary care on the part
of the PLAINTIFFS servant which cor
ributed as proXimate cause to the
injury. The entry must therefore be,
Motion overruled.