Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-02-21

take away entirely the defence of con-
tributory negligence. Perchance it may
be said that this is in favor of this bill;
that this bill does not do away with the
defence of eontributory negligence but
seeks to change the burden of proof In
regard to 1t. If it is a just defence, if il
is just requirement, | think that the
law should remain as it is.
The Workmen's Compensation Act is
demanded by certain economic and social
conditions which exist at the present
time. Corporations are responsible for a
large number of employees. Their safety
and their well being are in their hands.
and it will not do in these modern times
in reply to these questions which press
upon us, to say Am my brothers keep
err" That time has gone by. The Work.
mems Compensation Act will leave the
doctrine of contributory negligence as
applied to the third person, to the ordina-
~ walks of life, the master and servant
in the primitive sources, the servant in
/ our homes, the clerk in his store the
farmer and his hired man.
| And it also leaves it of course in the
application to towns, which are made liza
bile by statute to a person who has suf-
fered injury on account of defect in the
highway.
| This law applies only in certain partic-
ular instances, and / presume that is why
| IT is claimed-because l do not think they
mean to do away entirely with the doe
| trine of contributory negligence-it is only
applied in certain instances. To show
| how it may work perhaps | may be al
| lowed to cite certain cases that have
come before the court in our State and
| other states. A doctor was called at night
| to attend a case of child labor He drove
his large and heavy touring car In front
of house and left it by the curb. When
he went into the house his lights were
| burning. He was detained there a con-
| siderable length of time and during that
| time his lights probably burned out An
| other man, driving a light automobile
| came along the street and ran into the
| heavy automobile. The light automobile
was overturned and wrecked and the driv-
| er pinned underneath it and killed The
| man brought case against the doctor
| There was no eye witness to the tragedy
| The only man who could give any light
on the accident, on that which took place,
| was dead. The court said: I'VE have no
proof that the dead man was in the exer-
else of due care The defendants law
yer said: "How do We know that this
man who seeks to hold the defendant in
damages had his own lights burning /?
How do we know ne was driving al safe
cdte OF speed How CO We know he was
on the right side Of the street,?
1t was argued in the case that if the
man driving the light automobile had
mad ms lamps burning and trimmed and
hghted, and was driving at reasonable
and safe rate of speed. he must have
seen the large car standing against the
curb. And the court say You cannot re-
cover because your intestate may not
nave been in the exercise of due care
himself. There is no proof of it. We
cannot assume that he was 1t must be
proved,
Another case: A maid servant was sent
to hang some clothes out on an overhang-
ing platform on the third floor of fiat.
The clothes reel was in the corner of the
platform and there was a rail about two
feet high around the platform. She was
there alone. Later on she was founa on
the concrete below in the COURTYARD.
dead. The rail was not impaired There
was no evidence whatever to show how
she came to fall over that rail. or wheth
the rail was too low; that it should have
been at least three or four feet high. and
that she must have fallen over it, The
defendant said that she might have stood
upon the rail and lost her balance; that
she might have got on the outside. per-
chance, to reach out further ON the line
But there was no eye witness to this ae
cident; no one to say whether this girl
in no
nary care or not. 1t was held that she
could not recover.
SO | might go on and state a good
many cases the same way, but | thinl;
, that will illustrate the principle.
. Let us anaEyze the logic and fair
ness of this act. If a man is killed
IN an accident, he, and there are no
eye witness. he himself has the facts
which brought about that accident
locked up in his own breast. If there
We're Witnesses-this bill goes 70 the.
extent that if man is killed outright
or lives certain length of time. hui
is dead at the time of the trial. il
goes to the extent, not only if the
man IS killed outright. but if he lives
certain length of time and dies he
iore the time of the trial. it is sail
the facts shall be assumed in his
favor
Now assuming that the man lives
Tor a certain length of time after the
accident, but dies before the trial in
our State we have a provision for taxi
ing the mans deposition in perpetu
am, that is. his statement can be given
with all the solemnity of court pro-
ceedlngs, recorded in the registry of
deeds where everyone can see it and
II can be used in court
Under these circumstances I do not
see the need of this act, because Won
nave had the benefit of the mans tes-
tihony given as l said before, with all
.he soiemnity required in court.
again, oppose that the man lives o
certain length of time after the acct
oent, but dies before the trial and
there are eye witnesses to the acct.
oeht' cannot his representative SIM.
mon those eye witnesses into court in
MS 1aVor just az we'll as the defend
ant can be comnalIed to md. 80.