Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-18
FIVE RESCR|PTS.
Late Decisions Received
from The Law Court.
Cumberland, Hancock, Somer-
sci, WASH, and York
Figure Prominently in the Opinions
Handed Down.

The following reScripts have been
handed down by the law court in inn
portant cases from several counties:
Cumberland County. Bernard ]. Nc
Cafferty VS.. Maine Central Railroad.
Roscript, Savage, J.
The plaintiff, a competent and exper-
fenced steam filter and piper. and thor
OughIy familiar with all his surround
inSs, was engaged in fitting pipe in
the defendants machine shop. He was
left to do the work in his own way. In
doing so, he had assembled a ladder to
the track of an electric movable crane,
over twenty feet from the ground
While working he lay with his body
partly on or over the rail. The operator
Of the crane knew of the work in which
the Plaintiff was engaged, and that it
required him to go up onto the rail.
But at the time in question he did not
notice that the plaintiff was then at
work at that place, and in moving the
crane to ACCOMMODATES other work in the
shop, run 1t on To the plaintiff and
caused 'hc injury. The plaintiff did
not hear the approaching crane or
have notice of it. Neither the plaintiff
nor the defendant company gave notice
to the crane operator that the plaintiff
was then going up onto the rail. There
was no Ieli or other device on the
crane to give warning of it's approach.
Nor had the defendant company pros
mulGated rules for it's opera ton There
was no occasion for any employee to go
~ onto the rail in the ordinary work
done in the shop. Only twice in five
had work lt.,n done which
required any one to go up onto the rail.
There was evidence from which the
jury -"e"e- warranted in finding that the
brake OF the crane was not in good or
der, SO that the crane could not be
STOPPED by the operator as quickly as il
otherwise could be. The o2,rator in
this case, however, did not apply the
brake at all until after the plaintiff
had been struck. and the defect in the
brake did not cause the injury in the
first place. 1t only increased or aggra-
voted it.
He'll:
1. The question of the defendants
negligence is 20 be considered, not with
reference to tie general work common
ly carried on in the shop. but to the
special and temporary work in which
the plaintili was engaged; not with ref
erence to dangers arising from the OPP
eraticn of The crane to other employees
in other places, but to the danger to
the plaintiff III the work which he was
doing.
> 1t was not the duty of the defen-
dant to give special notice to the crane
operator each time the plaintiff went up
onto tie track. 1t was sufficient ii the
defendant gave the operator notice in
general of tho plaintiffs work and its
character and dangers And if the OPP
orator knew, as :le did in this case. all
that could have Dcen told him. further
notice was unnecessary.
3: The want of rules and regulations
and the want Of any device on the
crane to give warning of its approach.
cannot under the circumstances of this
case, be deemed negligence on the part
of the defendant.
There is no evidence Of the dofer>
lant's want OF reasonable care in ems
ploying and retaining the crane opera
tor And whather the operator haG
been properly instructed in the perfor-
nance OF his duties or not is inmates
rial since it clearly appears that he
understood his duties So far as they re-
lated to the plaintiff while working OF,
fhn Sracial inb