Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-08-16
MOTION OvERRULEp,
important Rescrpt In Case Of Robbins
. l.: VS.. l., A. G. w. St. Ry.

The following rescript was received
at the office of the clerk of courts
Monday;
Oceolar Robbins VS.. Lewiston, Angus
ia d Waterville Street Railway
Rescript, Spear. j.
This case comes up on motion and
exceptions. The case is stated in the
defendants brief as follows:
On July 20, 1907, the plaintiff was e
motorman on defendants trolley car
then running from W inthrop to Angus
to, on road which is operated by the
block signal system. The track be
tween TIE sub-station at East Winthrop
and Island Park is covered by block
with lights at each end. Plaintiff.
when about to leave the sub-station
found a white tight in front of him, in
dicating. according to the system that
there was one Car in the block coming
toward him from Island Park. He was
justified in going ahead into the block
as he did. The due care of the plaintiff
throughout is admitted.
Two cars had left Augusta running
opposite to plaintiff. one the regular
car bound for Winthrop. the other a
special car with orders to run only to
Island Park and to there cross plain
tiff The special had no right to go be-
ycnd island Park. 1t was to follow the
regular from Augusta to Island Park.
The regular carried sign Car fol-
lowing" to indicate to all crossing cars
that they should wait for the special.
Plaintiffs car and the regular from
Augusta should have crossed at Is
land Park if noth had been on tine.
ON arriving at Island Park, plaintiff S
car not being there. the regular prop
erly proceeded on towards the sub
station. as the light at Island Park was
white. Indicating that plaintiff had not
arrived at the Sub-StatiOn. When the
regular so entered the block it threw
the light at the sub 81 alton req, indi-
eating to plaintiff that he must wait
for the regular before entering the
block. The regular on crossing plain
tiff at the sub station took off the sign
car following. as they knew the Or
ders were Tor the special to remain at
Island Park. When the regular passed
plaintiff at the subs station. he was
justified in believing there was and
wou!d be no car in the block. The
light white. mechanical order to
plaintiff to proceed to Island Park.
The special without ORDERS and
against orders. left Island Park shortly
aftel- the regular anG. unseen by the
regular, continued to follow it to the
sui. station. This had no effect upon
the suh-staticn light which could be
changed from red to white only by the
action of the forward car. the regular
If the following car violates orders and
enters a block behind a regular the
protection of the crossing cars is in
the Car following" sign.
AS result the car of plaintiff and
the special collided in the block
severely injuring plaintiff That Tay-
lor. the motOrmAn. and Sanborn. the
conductor. in charge of the special
We're both guilty of negligence in sc
entering the block was admitted. The
damages We're assessed at $500. The
defendant does not contend that the
law court would be justified in finding
the damages to be unreasonably eX-
ceseive.
From this statement it will be seer
that the plaintiffs action rests upor
negligent in the selection and reten.
ton of it's servants. Taylor and San
lorn, espet tally Taylor. the motorman
when it knew. or by the exercise of due
care should have known. his incom.
Potency. The negligent act complained
of was the running into the block with
out orders and against orders in viola
ton of the rule.
the fate of the motion depends upon
| the result of the exceptions. If the ex
ceptions prevail. the evidence in sup.
port of the verdict disappears. If the
exceptions fail. the verdict is wei
founded. In other words, the evidence
if admissible, amply sustains both the
charge of unfitness of the servant anC
such notice thereof to the defendant
that it knew or by due care ought t
have known of his incompetency.
This brings US to the question raised
| by the exceptions: Is the evidence o
specific acts of prior negligence adnis
sitle to prove, ID. iEcompetency: (2)
| knowledge to the master? All the ex
| ceptions but one, which will be discus
seG later. present the same question o
law and may be considered together.
| The defendant does not question TIN
assertion that the great weight of au
| thority is in favor of the admission o
such testimony, and cites only Massa
| chusetts and Pennsylvania in opposi
ton. On the other hand it appears from
| the plaintiffs brief that 20 of the 8
states that have passed upon this ques