Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1912-12-11
MRS. RoDlcK WINS.
Law Court Decides In Her Favor In
suit Against Raiiroad,

suit Against Railroad.
The law court has decided in favor n,
OF Mrs. Elizabeth NJ. Rodick, ia her ac-
ton against the Maine Central railroad.
The rescript, by Associate Justice Cor
nish, is as follows:
| On the evening of Feb. 3. 1911, the plaintiff
passenger on steamboat of the defendant
company. landed at It's wharf In Bar Harbor
and while passing along upon the wharf on
her way 10 take public conveyance. slipped
upon Ice fell and was seriously injured. She
obtained a verdict of 1880, and the defend an,
has brought the case to this court ON motion
| and exceptions. Held:
!. That upon the sharp Issue Of fact SUBJ
mitted TO the jury as to the precise spot
where the plaintiff fell, whether within
| OF without that portion Of the wharf set
| apart for passenger travel. the evidence
was conflicting, and the finding of the Jury
was not so manifestly against the weight OF
evidence rs TO be disturbed.
q That the plaintiffs injury was due to a
| condition of the wharf for which the defend
ant was legally responsible, and that liability
| mightacisc oven though the plaintiff had take n
| few steps beyond the sidewalk In order to
| control OF the entire wharf and permitted the
teams to drive upon this portion TO meet pas
| sengers. aud therefore impliedly invited the
passengers to meet the teams. The situation
| differs from one where teams are waiting in a
public highway over which the company has
| neither control nor responsibility.
.. That there Is no evidence OF want Of due
| care on the part of the plaintiff.
A Of.
The plaintiff-was employed as a clerk in the
Bar Harbor postofiiee At a salary of sI,iOo per
! year. Her earning power has been ma
| terially reduced. The injury was serious and
probably permanent. The expenses have
been necessarily large and the suffering was
severe.
Exceptions:
l. Photographs of the locus were admitted.
which had been taken several months, after
the accident, and which represented the plain
tin Ms standing In the exact spot where she
claims to have fallen.
The admissibility OF q photograph is Il pre-
liminsry question addressed to the discretion
of the presiding Justice and depends upon
whether IL is sufficiently verified, is fairly
representative of the object portrayed and
may be useful to the jury.
D Photographs, however, should represe Mt
simply the conditions existing at the time,
and when they go further aud represent per-
sons In various assumed positions they may
be more properly excluded than admitted,
because they have passed beyond their legiti-
mate function and tend to unduly emphasize
the claims OF one party or the other.
8. 1t would have been wiser use of discre-
| ton Ia this case to have excluded the photo
graphs, but their admission was not such an
abuse OF discretionary power as to warrant
sustaining the exceptions.
g. That the refusal of the preceding justice
TO specifically instruct the jury that at the
time Of the injury the relation of common
carrier and passenger did not exist, con-
stituted no error, as he had already clearly
and comprehensiyely charged the jury as to
the exact legal relation arising between them.
and to have given the requested instructions
at that time would have misled rather than
aided the jury in their comprehension of the
legal obligations of the parties.
Motions aud exceptions overruled.