The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1917-05-17
Rescript In Hamllton-M Madison Water
Company Case Is Received

A rescript has been received by
Clerk of Courts. Seekins in the case
of William D. Hamilton of Bath versus
the Madison Water Company of Madi-
son in which judgment for the plain
tiff for the sum of $500 has been or
dered
This case which is of great interest
in Somerset County. was tried here in
the Supreme Court and pleadings
were filed at the June term, 1916, 60
ing to the Law Court on report. Mr..
Hamilton was represented by W. B.
Brown and James II. Thorne of Madi
son while Butler & Butler of Show
hogan and Hon. W. r. Pattangall rep
resented the water company.
In his rescrpt, Justice Cornish
held
/. That is was the duty of the de-
PENDANT to exercise ordinary care and
vigilance in furnishing and distribut-
ing at all times an adequate supply of
wholesome water for domestic use.
2. That the degree of care and
vigilance necessary to constitute or
binary prudence has relation to the
importance of the subject matter and
is commensurate with the duty to be
performed.
3. When a corporation assumes
what is practically an exclusive right
to provide a community with such a
prime necessity Of life as water,
hot bn
held to a high degree of faithfulness
in furnishing a supply adequate in
quantity and wholesome In quality.
This Is but the exercise of ordinary
care applied to the circumstances of
the particular case.
4. Actual notice or knowledge of
the unwholesomeness of the water on
the part of the defendant is not an
essential element to be proven in
order to establish the defendants
liability. II Is sufficient IL there was
credible testimony showing that the
defendant in the exercise of reason
able care might have discovered it's
unwholesome and dangerous condi-
ton.
5. Nor is the plaintiff legally re-
quired to prove by positive testimony
and with absolute certainty that the
drinking of the water was the cause
of his typhoid fever. 1t is sufficient If
he proves facts and circumstances
from which it is made to reasonably
appear that the drinking of the
water was the probable efficient cause
of the plaintiffs illness.
s. The facts and circumstances In
this case lead to the reasonable con-
cluson that the typhoid fever from
which the plaintiff suffered was con-
tracted from the use of the water
furnished by the defendant, and that
the defendant was not in the exer-
else of due care in supplying him with
such contaminated water.
T. While the doctrine of contribu-
tory negligence on the part of the
plaintiff obtains in this case of cases,
as in all others of actionable negli-
gence, its enforcement depends upon
the peculiar facts and circumstances
of each case, and those facts and cir
cumstances must be weighed in the
light of the relations between the
parties.
s. This case Is barren of any sub
stantial evidence tending to prove
want of due care on the part of the
plaintiff He did what the ordinary
prudent water taker would have done
under the same circumstances and
therefore fulfilled the measure of duty
resting upon him.
8. According to the stipulation
under which this case was reported
to this Court, damages are to be as
sessed by agreement in the sum of
$i50c