The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1916-04-14
ATTORNEY DECLARES
DRIVER NEGLIGENT
In Arguing Case of Seth c. Rich, Who
Sued George H. Cross of Mortified
for Death of Mrs. Rich in
Automobile Accident.

Arguments in the case of Seth c. Rich
administrator, vs.. George II. Cross, il
which the plaintiff seeks TO obtain 81 0,0Ol
damages for the death OF his wife, due
it is claimed, to the negligence of the de
fendant as the result of an automobil,
accident which occurred on NorthfelC
street, Montpelier, last August, Were
commenced in county court this fore
noon.
In the opening argument by the attor'
ney for the plaintiff, Warren X. Austin
stress was laid on the evidence, as shown
by the plaintiff, that the automobile wa.
being driven 35 miles an hour when the
accident happened. Attorney Austin ar
gued that the testimony brought out the
fact that the defendant was entirely ia.
miliar with the highway where the fatal
ity resulted, that he knew the dangerous
condition of the road and that instead of
exercising due caution because of the
fact that it was dark and foggy and the
road harbored ruts, the opposite was the
case. The plaintiff, argued Attorney
Austin, contends that the defendant was
guilty of gross negligence even if the
machine was not going faster than Is
miles an hour, a speed admitted by the
defendent on the stand. The degree of
care to be used is governed by the degree
of danger and knowing the latter as he
did, the defendant failed to be duly eau
tious.
In deciding the compensation Mr.. Aus
tin requested the jury to consider the
worth of Mrs. Rich to her husband
cripple, almost wholly dependent on his
wife for support and he dwelt on the
value OF Mrs. Rich as money producer,
her business capablity and her probable
longevity, barring such an accident as
occurred
Taking up that portion of the evi.
dence concerning the condition of the de
fendant, whether or not intoxicated, Mr..
Austin said that the plaintiff did not
wish to be unfair and no contention was
made that Cross was drunk, but that he
was in state of intoxication.
In his argument, the plaintiffs attor
ney also asserted that it had been shown
that the accident was not in any way
caused or aided by any act of Mrs. Rich
She had not molested Mr.. Cross, nor had
she called his attention by any spoken
word or action. The responsibility, he
argued, rested entirely upon the shoul-
iers Of the defendant
Attorney J. Ward Carver spoke for the
lefense this forenoon and Frank Plumley
also argued for the same side, finishing
Up his plea this afternoon. He was fol-
owed by Mr.. Austin in summing up for
he plaintiff. 1t is expected that the case
will 60 to the jury late in the day.
The attorneys for the defendant en-
Ieavored to prove that the automobile IN |
question was not moving rapidly at the |
ime of the accident. Mr.. Carver said /
hat the cause of the vehicle slipping of |
he road was because of the soft condi- I
ion of the highway at that point He |
ls0 told of the relation between Rich |
nd his wife as tending to show how
much money Mrs Rich would have given
0 her husband had she lived and been
BILE to continue her occupation. Attor
ey Plumley referred to the rutted con
ition of the road a fact which the
laintiff had fought all through the case,
e said, only to accept toward the end
nd to utilize for its own side OF the
lse. He said that the situation, there
Dre, resolved itself down to the question
neither the car was being driven rapid I
Z, and he said the plaintiff had intro. |
uced only two witnesses to assert that
ie car was going fast. He then referred I
, the difficulty TO determine the speed Z
a car when the machine is coming to- I
ard one and in the face Of lighted head Ii
yhts. S