Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-11-08
DefniteAppIcaiionofAuio
mobile Laws by Court.
Penobseol Co. Case Accepted
As a Favorable Opportunity.
RescrIpts In the Cases from Several
Counties, Given 0ui.


Ii would be of little avail to anal
we the testimony in this case on the
question of liability. The report
shows that there was ample room for
the defendant to have guided his ma
chine safely past the team in which
the plaintiff was riding, had he been.
paying proper attention to the rights
of the team.
In view of the accidents and TRACE
dies that are daily occurring in the
operation of automobiles, the present
case seems an available opportunity
for statement of the familiar rules
If law with more definite application,
than has yet been announced in this
State, to the duty OF persons who un-
dertake to drive upon the public high
ways, the engines of power and peril
now represented in the mechanism of
the automobile If not strictly a mat
ter of judicial notice, it is a matter of
common knowledge. that death and
injury are OF daily occurrence due to
, the inefficiency, negligence or reck-
less conduct of those who are per-
mitted to engage in the operation of
these powerful machines. A mania
for speed seems to have seized the
minds and dominated the action OF
many. of the automobile operators,
whether owners or chauffeurs. This
class of drivers apparently assume
that the foot passenger or team upon
their approach will SO hastily change
its course as to relieve the operator
from any dimnution of speed, that
he may have his machine under con-
troll and avoid accident, if the unex-
pected happens. and the passenger or
vehicle or child does not, as quickly
as anticipated, obey the mandate of
his whistle or horn
1t is also matter of common
knowledge, that all adults of ordin-
airy prudence do not always imme-l
dately do the right thing, or ex-.
ercise the best judgment, in cases re-
quiring quick thought and quick ac-
ton. This failure of men to act alike,
under like circumstances, is so gener-
al. in it's application. that 1t must be
regarded as habit, which all per-
sons. coming in contact with human
action must be held to recognize and
anticipate, as an existing condition.
In view of this habit, due to the in
herent frailtes of human nature, and
the rule of law, that the degree of
diligence deemed in law sufficient to
constitute due care, is always COM
mensurate with the danger to be
avoided, it is the opinion of the court
that the driver of an automobile in
the public highways, constantly trav-
eled by pedestrians and teams, and
occupied by children of all ages,
fob r.
else so high a degree of diligence in
observing the rights of foot pas
senger or team, when approaching
them, as to enable him to control 1t,
or stop it if necessary, to avoid a
collision, which cannot be regarded
as a pure accident Cue to contribu-
tory negligence.
But it may be claimed that this
rule of diligence renders the opera
ton of automobiles impracticable. II
so, let the business stop. They should
be required to do everything that
human agency can do to avoid taking
human life This court declared in
Cameron VS. Street Railway, 1oS Maine,
4S2. that 1.-The court should establish,
as law, the rule which prevents in
Jury or loss of life, rather than that
which invites or even permits it. This
rule is based upon reason and pub
lie policy" But the claim of imprac-
ticability is not well founded. Pru-
dent drivers neither kill children, nor
injure men, except at very rare In
teryaIs. and then only in cases of UNI
avoidable accident or contributory
negligence, But whatever the result,
these requirements are essential to an
effective rule of safety, and are in
harmony with the rights of travellers
upon the highway, and of children in
the streets however they may come
there.
But no new principles of law have
been evolved for express apphcauon
to the operation of automobiles. We
have simply endeavored to apply the
well known principles of law in a
specific way to this class of cases, as
has been done in the cases OF steam
roads and electric cars. The founda-
ton of every principle of law in
yol<ed is found in what might be re-
garded as a legal maXim-the very
Foundation of the rule underlying the
doctrine of due care and negligence
hazard, the law imposes the duty Oh
using such diligence, as is common
surate with the danger to be avoided.
This rule applies to the operation OF
steam railroads upon the ground OF
public policy and safety, and finds
expression in Libby VS. Maine Central
r r.. Co.. So Maine, "a, in this Ian
o,,ape, This law requires common
carriers of passengers to do all that
human care, vigilance and foresight
can. under the circumstances, consid-
ering the character and mode OF con-
veyance. to prevent accident to pas
seneers. To require anything less
would be to leave, the lives of per-
sons in the hands of the reckless, and
unprotected against the negligent ana
incautious.'
The same rule applies to the opera
tion of street cars and automobiles
axcent that the degree of diligence
raouired is varied to correspond WIN
the diminished danger. Marden VS.
street Railway, 100 Maine, Al; Towie
We Morse. 1903 Maine, $50; Quincy VS.
pie, 105 Maine, sol. 1t requires no
f,rtber citations to show that II IS
: well established rule that great