Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-08-12
Kate Quincy VS.. Michael Pfel.


Motion for new tria1 by defendant. On
Sept. A. 1905, the plaintiff was driving
north on the Canada. road toward and
near Jackman village, in a. covered car.
riage, drawn by a single horse A short
distance south of the village: she was
overtaken by defendant in his automo-
bile and in the attempt on the defendants
part to pass the plaintiffs team, there
was a collision, the rear right wheel of
the PLAINTIFFS carriage and the left front
wheel of the automobile coming in con-
tact The plaintiff was thrown from the
carriage and sustained injuries not ser-
Gus. Due care on the part of the plain
tiff is not controverted and the single
issue is whether the jury was warranted
from the evidence in finding negligence
on the part of the defendant
The case shows that the plaintiff was
driving at the rate of four or five miles
an hour and was entirely unaware of the
approach of the automobile before the
collision occurred. The parish priest who
was In the convent grounds shouted and
attempted to attract her attention and
to warn her of the machine which he
saw approaching from behind but he was
unable to do so. The reason which she
gives is that her attention was fixed up
on managing her horse, that was showing
signs of fear as she was passing the
convent. which she attributed to. the
noise Connected with the working of aader-
rick on the convent grounds, but which
evidently was caused by the approaching
automobile, the. noise of which had
caught the ear of the horse but not her
own. She says that she driving in
the center of the road, the wrought part
of which at that point was only IA to Is
feet wide. The horse kept going faster
and faster" as she described it and when
nearly opposite the ,Murtha house the
crash came and she was suddenly thrown
against the dasher and thence upon the
ground. $500
The defendants version is that he first
saw the team about 1000 feet ahead when
he was travelling at the rate of seven or
eight miles an hour; that he sounded his
horn frequently in order to warn the
plaintiff of his APPROACH; that he slowed
down until when within about one hun
dred feet of the team they were travel
ing at the same rate, that this continued
for short time, when the plaintiff
left of the road and thinking there was
space enough he attempted to pass on the
right, moving at about six miles an hour
and that when the two vehicles were
nearly abreast, the plaintiffs horse
swerved towards the car bringing her
right hind wheel in contact with the left
forward wheel of the car and causing the
accident in other words that the team
ran into the car instead of the car run
ming into the team. The plaintiff replies
that the defendants speed was far
greater than he admitted, that the plain
tiff did not turn towards the left as She
had no occasion to do so, not knowing
of any approaching car, and that If the
horse did in his fright swerve Slightly
towards the car at the moment of pass
ing, it was a condition that the Tdefen-
dant if acting with due care and with a
proper regard for the rights of the plain
tiff should have anticipated and avoided
Held: 7.~f --~:- .1''s
That the evidence of the plaintifftif be-
lieved together with certain facts de-
veloped by the defence, warranted the
verdict. The narrowness of the road
the frightened appearance of the plain
tiff's horse and the probable space be-
tween the two vehicles were all apparent
to the defendant. If he took his chances
or miscalculated the space he cannot
wait a few moments. he could have pass
ed with entire safety as there was a
wide space short distance ahead.