Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1913-11-18
Automobile Drivers, Be Careful !

Automobile Drivers, Be Careful
THE RESPONSIBILITY PRoPoRTIoNATE TO
HORSE POWER, SAYS THE COURT.
Once In q while the Maine Supreme
. Court stakes occasion to remark" 1t did
so In rescript handed down q few days
, since in q Penobscot County suit for
damages done by an automobile to q
J team. Only about dozen lines of the
rescript apply solely to the case under
consideration. The rest of 1t is OF gem
J eral application and interest, and should
be read and digested at least by every
driver of an automobile. The rescript
is written by Judge Spear, and the main
part of it, which is Of general interest, 10
as follows:
Il In view Of the accidents and tragedies
that are daily occurring In the operation
of automobiles, the present case seems
an available opportunity for statement
of the familiar rules Of law with more
definite application than has yet been
announced In this state, to the duty OF
persons who undertake to drive upon the
public highways, the engines OF power
and peril now represented in the mech
lapism of the automobile. II not strictly
a matter of judicial notice, 1t Ia matter
of common knowledge that death and
injury are of daily occurrence due to the
ineficiency, negligence or reckless con-
duct of those who are permitted to en-
gage In the operation of these powerful
achines. 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 80 hastily change it's
course as to relieve the operator from
any diminution of speed, that he may
have his machine under control and
avoid accident, If the unexpected hap
pens, and the passenger, or vehicle or
child does not, as quickly as anticipated,
obey the mandate Of his whistle or horn.
It is also matter of common knowl-
edge that all adults of ordinary pru.
dence do not always Immediately do the
right thing, or exercise the best Judg-
meut, in cases requiring quick thought
and quick action. This failure OF men
to act alike, under like circumstance, is
so general in its application that 1t must
be regarded as habit, which all persons
coming in contact with human action
must be held 10 recognize and anticipate
as an existing condition. In view OF this
habit, due to the inherent frailties OF hui
man nature, and the rule OF law, that
the degree of diligence deemed in law
sufficient to constitute due care, Ia al
ways commensurate with the danger to
be avoided, it is the opinion OF the court
that the driver of an automobile in the
public highways, constantly travelled by
pedestrians and teams and occupied by
children of all ages, should, to establish
due care, exercise so high degree of
diligence in observing the rights OF
foot passenger or team when approach
| ing them as to enable him to control 1t,
or stop it If necessary, to avoid COL
Ilisiop, which cannot be regarded as
pure accident due to contributory negll-
gence.
But it may be claimed that this rule
of diligence renders the operation OF au-
tomobiles impracticable. If 80, 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, 103 Maine, 1872, that 1.-THE court
should establish, as law, the rule which
prevents injury or loss OF life, rather
THAI that which invites or permits 1t.
This rule Is based upon reason and pub
| lie policy" But the claim OF impracti-
cability is not we'll founded. Prudent
drivers neither kill children nor ipjure
men, except at rare intervals, and then
only in cases of unavoidable accident or
contribu,ory negligence. But whatever
the result, these requirements are essen.
tial to an effective rule of safety, and
are in harmony with the rights of trav-
elers 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 application to
the operation of automobiles. We have
simply endeavored to apply the we'll
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 foundation OF every
principle Of law invoked Is found in
what might be regarded as a legal maxim
THE very foundation of the rule under
| living the doctrine of due care and negli-
gence-that in all human action involv-
| ing hazard, the law imposes the duty OF
using such diligence as Is commensurate
with the danger to be avoided: This
rule applies to the operation OF steam
railroads upon the ground OF pubic
policy and safety, and finds expression 10
Libby vs.. Maine Central r. r. Co.,. 80
Maine, "a, in this language: "This law
requires common carriers OF passengers
| to do all that human care, vigilance and
| foresight can, under the circumstances,
considering the character and mode of
conveyance, to prevent accident to pas.
sengers. To require anything less would
be to leave the lives of persons In the
hands of the reckless, and unprotected
against the negligent and incautious."
The same rule applies to the operation
of street cars and automobiles, except
that the degree of diligence required is
varied to correspond with the diminished
danger. Marden vs. Street Railway, 100
Maine, Al; Towle vs.. Morse, 103 Maine,
$50; Quincy vs.. Piel, 105 Maine, sol. 1t
requires no further citations to show that
1t is a we'll established rule that great
danger requires great vigilance.
That the modern motor car, equipped
with engine developing from twenty to
eighty horse power, capable of reaching
a speed of from twenty to eighty miles
an hour, and moving with such momen.
tum that no ordinary obstacle can resist
It is of highly dangerous character, Is
80 apparent that the mere statement of
the facts Is equivalent to proof. The
finding OF the jury upon this question OF
liability was manifestly right.
A Rare Treat. Quo Vadls.