Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-12-08
f,ESCNIPTS FROM
The LAW court
Plaintiff Wins in Powers VS.. NJ.
c. R. R.-Appeal Denied in
Murphy VS.. Utah Milling and
Transportation Company -
New Trial Refused in Lunge
VS.. Abbott.

Rescripts have been received by
Charles W. Jones of Augusta, clerk of
courts for kennehec county, in the
Penobscot case of Powers VS.. Maine
Central. in which judgment for the
plaintiff for $500 is found; York county
case of Murphy ct ais, in equity, VS..
Utah Milling and Transportation Co.
the appeal being denied, with addition
al costs; and the York case of Lunge
appellant vs.. Abbott, in which the mo-
ton and exceptions are overruled. The
rescripts:
PENOBsCOT COUNTY.
George Albert Powers VS.. Maine
Central Railroad. ReScript, Spear j.
This is an action to recover for per-
sonal injuries. After the testimony
was all in the presiding justice ordered
q verdict for the defendant with the
stipulation, if the exceptions taken to
the order We're sustained, that the law
court should assess the damages The
only question. therefore, is whether
the case should have been submitted to
the jury. We think it should
The plaintiff at the time of his in
$500 go &C VI L I1iIGS ~
Son. who We're contractors in con-
stTUctlng the eastern span OF the Old
| Town and Milford bridge across the
/ Penohscot river The Maine Central
Railroad contracted with T. J. Hines &
son at certain sum per night of
not over three hours, to furnish a
freight train to unload. upon the main
me. gravel and crushed rock TO be
used III the construction of the bridge
The railroad company was to furnish
the train and crew to operate il, Tor a
stated time and sum. but beyond this
| had nothing wha tever to do with the
use or control Of the train. Its move
mentS We're not under the direction Of
the railroad company. 1t was in the
employ. and working under the orders
OF Hines 4 Son. The plaintiff was
/ inquired by being thrown between the
cars, BY impact caused by moving
that part Of the train to which the
engine Yas attached against some de-
tached cars standing upon the track,
upon one Of which the plaintiff was
attempting 10 meant for the purpose
OF unloading it. In causing the acct
cent inc plaintiff contends the defend
ant company was negligent in two
ways: FIRST. by carelessly running the
/ engine. ana cars to which Il was
attached, a@ains, the other cars
~ such q dangerous and VIC
lent manner az TO throw the plain
M upon the track" Second, by ne
3IecflnS 70 give any notice or warn
ing to the plaintiff of their purpose to
ah2~k!2 70 tho cars which We're bein.
un!oaded. While tho defendant con
tends under nc contract of hire, that
the train crew. Willie doing this partic-
ular Worl: We're the employees Of Hines
q Son, for WHOSE conduct the railroad
was ~ no way Responsible either for
no2Igenr" II. operating the train ar in
executing crdhi*$ II acting according 10
H.fe@tloil:', lip Olhcr words. that The
train crew wore fellow, servants in lie
executor OF this work, with the en-
p!oyecs q Hines & Son. The plaintiffs
answer is that the railroad COMPANY.
undeE its charter and the laws IF the
state. could net by contract divest it,
self Of FIJI responsibility for the oper-
alton Of its train.
me fellow servant rule. as will be
seen. does not apply, Nor do we think
the doctrine that the ~allroad - re-
&po1aibie for properly executing ire
order; Of HINES < son. without any
negligence on It's bnn part. can no an
Piled
Accordingly the Gi@crentia ton be-
t"e'''l hi" case and the line ne cases
HI which tie p!air;if irycilos th2 rlie
mat a T3i}ro.,4 c:.nut diyest Itself of
~ chartered responsibility. is found
IN INC inquiry whether the negIigence
complained Of vas in the improper me-
chanlcal operation of the train in exc
culihg q proper order or in the proper
MtShdhlcaI operation Of the train in
tAtHttl..- "il improper order: in other
words "h"tH"r the careless Opnration
y ne lf'i-n Was tn" p-oXimatn cause.
~ lAt execution Of Il careless order.
was the nEoXimat" cause of the acct
u1A' ana inju"T. If the latter. then the
rue GOES not apply. as the railroad. un-
"cE INC contract. cannot be declared 10
~ Negligent. unless it is held to be an
insurer
th|er this Interpretation of the law
three questions Of fact should have been
submitted to the jury. % Was the
'2iiEoad comranv negligent N the me-
ch2nical operation Of it's train in the
"&'cunon OF the order 10 move the
t@ln: CD Was il negligent in a fail
IRE to give proper warning that it was
ABOUT to shackle on to the cars that
! were being Unloaded? go Was the
plaintiff guilty Of contributory negli-
&once: IS a verdict would be per
mitted 10 stand upon these PROPOSE
tons, according to the agreement the
exceptions must be sustained and
damages assessed.
Judgment for plaintiff for $500.
. Received Dec G. 1915.