The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1922-10-31
$13,335.2O AS
DEATH DAMAGES
Given To D. P. Lefebvre
|. Against Central Yer
mont r. r.
WIFE AND DAUGHTER
KILLED IN w. BERLIN
Plaintiff Sued AS Admins
traitor Of Wife's
Estate

toiiiphif ~ " hHHlhStVh Nputet NDti'e
returned verdict in favor Of the
plaintiff to recover $l3,335.20 at about
$3.50 p. m. Monday. The jury CON
sidered the case about four hours.
Mr.. Lefebvre sued for damages re-
sulting from a crossing accident at
West Berlin on June IL last, inS-which
his wife, Grace Lefebvre, and his
daughter, Miss Glenna Lefebvre, were
killed. He charged negligence on the
part of the railroad in failing to give
proper signal, in failing to keep a
proper lookout, and in building and
maintaining an obstruction in the
highway in the shape Of cinder plat
form or ramp leading up to the sta
tion platform. He brought snit as
administrator Of his wife's estate.
The attorneys for the plaintiff were
Theriault & Hunt and for the rail
road John w. Redmond and William
McFeeters.
Final arguments were presented by
counsel for Mr. Lefebyre and the Gem
tral Vermont Monday afternoon. The
presentation Of the charge to the jury
by Judge Fish occupied about three
quarters of an hour.
At the bo&inning Of the charge
Judge Fish stated that the case was
one of more than usual interest and
Importance and at the close that it had
been presented by counsel OF more
than usual ability.
Judge Fish summed up the plain
tiff's charges of negligence on the part
OF the railroad as first, in having failed
TO give proper signal; second, in
failing to keep such lookout as the
law intended; and third, in construct
ing and maintaining a cinder platform
which obstructed the highway He
then took up the defendants answers,
which were: First, that none of the
charges were made out, and second.
that the negligence of George Bardis,
the diver Of the automobile, was the
proximate cause of the accident.
In case the railroad was found gull
ty, Judge Fish instructed the jury,
damages must be assessed on pecn
mary basis, and called attention to
the testimony which showed that Mrs.
Lefebyre's life expectancy was 301a
years. She was 81 years Of age. The
death of Miss Glenna Lefebvre was
not TO be considered by the jury. in
assessing damages, Judge Fish in
structed them.
In beginning his charge, Judge Fish
stated that the plaintiff brought suit
not only for himself as administrator
81 the estate Of his deceased wife.
Grace Jefebvre, but also on behalf of
he next Of kin.
The plaintiffs evidence must out
weigh the defendants TO obtain YER
iict, he told the jury.
Defining negligence. Judge Fish
ave among other definitions that of
he Vermont supreme court, "a short
'ge in legal duty which causes injury
o another"
Travellers on the highways and rail
'oads have mutual obligations to each
,thcr, he stated, and proceeded TO dis
'uss the law in relation to the sig
lal required to be given by a train
approaching a crossing at grade. The
tatute provides that bell weighing
Il least 30 pounds shall be carried by
'ach locomotive and shall be rung
rom point so rods before the cross
ng until the crossing is reached The
whistle may be blown instead. The
natter for the jury to consider. Judge
'ish said. was whether this was done, |
nd II not, whether the failure to do |
o was pfoximate cause of the acci
ent
In regard to the lookout kept by the |
rain crew. Judge Fish said the jury |
must decide wheher proper lookout /
ras kept and il not whether a proper
Dokout would have enabled the train /
rev TO warn the sutomobilists in time
o let them escape. II this was true.
he railroad would be negligent and
allure TO keep a proper lookout-would !
e proximate cause.
In regard to the cinder platform
uilt in the highway. Judge Fish stated
he law that the builder and maintain
r was liable to anyone injured di-
ectly bv il il il was kept therc<'will-
illyr or Intentionally. Even il Bar
is drove into place of peril. he said,
9 was entitled to use of the full high
nv. If hut for the obstacle, Mrs.
efebvre would not have been killed,
was a proximate cause, he stated.
the platform was maintained will
illy, il was an unlawful obstruction,
ndge Fish concluded.
Plaintiffs Duty to Establish.
To recover. the plaintiff must estab-
sh that he was not guilty Of negli-
spce which was a proximate cause,
nd that the defendants negligence
as. or was part Of, the proximate
Iuse.
The defendants negligence must be
-oved 10 be the proximate cause or
part Of il. Judge Fish said. in order
n the plaintiff 20 recover Explain
q ''proximate cause he stated that .
was not necessarily the material :
Iuse. but that il must be negligence :
.cIrring at the time Of the accident {
id that IL must have a logical con
.ction with the accident. II must
q cause that the injury would not I
i've happened without il.
Negligence on the part Of Bardis I
uld not be attributed 20 the plain I
f. intestate Mrs. Lefebsrel. Judge G
"a aid. The question in regard to :
= VAS Did she DO anything that a I =
udent per-on would not have done un-
z the Circumstances Reasonable ]