The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1909-08-19
Autoist Took Chances.

A rescript in the Somerset County
case of Michael Piel VS. Kate Quincy
has just been handed down. This
was one of the earlier actions brought
to recover damages alleged to have
been caused by an automobile and for
that reason attracted more than usual
interest. The plaintiff is a resident of
Jackman and sister, Mrs. Geo. Gro
der, resides here. The defendant is
New Yorker of means who bought
the Parlin Pond place of Nicholas
Murphy, some years since, and has
expended large amount in beautlfy-
ing it and developing it for his sum-
mer home. The case was entered for
trial at the September Term in 1906
and tried at the September term of
1908. Mr. Piel was represented by E.
F. Danforth and Gould & Lawrence;
Merrill & Merrill were attorneys for
the plaintiff. The verdict awarded
the plaintiff 1927 and the rescript
given below, denies the motion for a
new trial and confirms this verdict.
REsCRIPT
"The law requires automobiles like
all other citizens to have regard for
the rights of others, and it may be
convenient and even fascinating to
reach our destination at the earliest
possible moments, but the safety of
travellers must not be sacrificed to
speed" states Associate Justice Les
lie G. Cornish in rescript handed
down from the law court in the
Somerset county case of Kate Cur
ney vs. Michael Piel, overruling the
motion of the defendant for new
trial.
The rescript is as follows:-
Motion for new trial by defendant.
On Sept. IA, 1905, the plaintiff was
driving north on the Canada road to-
ward and near Jackman village, in a
covered carriage, drawn by single
horse. A short distance south of the
village she was overtaken by the de-
PENDANT in his automobile and in the
attempt on the defendants part to
pass the plaintiffs team, there was a
collision. The plaintiff was thrown
from the carriage and sustained in
iuries not serious. The single issue is
whether the jury was warranted
from the evidence in finding negli-
gence on the part of the defendant.
The reason which she gives is that
her attention was fixed upon manag-
ing her horse, that was showing signs
of fear as she was passing the con-
vent, which she attributed to the
noise connected with the working of
derrick 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 was driving in the center of
the road, the wrought part of which
at that point was only ID 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.
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 about 100 feet of the team they
were travelling at the same rate, that
this continued for short time, when
the plaintiff turned her horse some
what towards the left of the road,
and thinking there was space enough
he attempted to pass on the the right,
moving at about six miles an hour,
and that when the two vehicles were
nearly ARREST, the plaintiffs horse
swerved towards the car bringing her
right hind wheel in contact with the
left wheel of the car and causing the
accident; in other words that the
team ran into the car instead of the
car running into the team. The
plaintiff replies that the defendants
speed was far greater than he admit
ted, that the plaintiff did not turn to
the left, as she had no occasion to do
80, not knowing of any approaching
car, and that if the horse did In his
fright swerve slightly towards the
car at the moment of the passing, it
was a condition that the defendant If
acting with due care and with a pro-
per regard for the rights of the plain
tiff should have anticipated and
avoided.
Held: That the evidence of the
plaintiff if believed together with GER
tain facts developed by the defence,
warrented the verdict. The narrow
ness of the road, the frightened ap-
pearance of the plaintiffs horse and
the probable space between the two
vehicles were all apparent to the de-
fendant. If he took his chances or
miscalculated the space he cannot
now complain. Had he been willing
to wait few moments, he could have
passed with entire safety as there
was wide space short distance
ahead.
Whether this collision occurred
thru the negligence of the defendant
in attempting to pass in too narrow
space sin attempting to take open
ing" as the defendants son express
ed it, or thru his failure properly to
appreciate the conduct of the horse,
as the defendant himself rather ad
mits, or both combined, or whether it
was an unavoidable accident, was for
the determination of the jury in the
first instance, and it Is the opinion of
the court that their finding was au-
thorized by the evidence.
Motion overruled.