Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-10-02
Judgment for
Defendant in
Accident Case


A rescript was handed down by the
law court Monday in the Cumberland
county case of Jane NJ. Berry VS.. How
ard MacDougall. giving judgment for
the defendant.
The rescript per curtain, is as fol-
lows:
This is an action brought to recover
compensation for personal injuries. eX-
penses of medical treatment. hospital
charges. nursing and other incidental
outlay. which resulted from an AUTO
mobile collision in which the plaintiff
was the sufferer. The case comes to
us on report. The car in which she
was riding was neither owned nor
driven by the plaintiff but for conven-
fence will be referred to as the plain
tiff's car.
The locus of the collision was at the
intersection of a country road with a
stretch of State highway still under
construction. On the latter. although
somewhat rough as to surface there
was a large amount OF traffic. The
plaintiffs car was travelling the coun-
try road. It's occupants on the rear
scat were the plaintiff, and her daugh-
ter, Mrs. Robertson; on the front seat
the husband of the latter and Bion
Berry. grandson Of the plaintiff. who
was driving. These occupants testified
that Plaintiffs car was approaching
the State highway at a rate of speed
from eight to ten miles an hour and
that the horn was sounded. Two of
the occupants, Mr.. and Mrs. Robert
son, have brought suit to recover their
damages arising from the same acct
dent and their testimony should be eX
amined in the light of their interest
car. boy 16 years old. testified as the
other occupants did as to rate Of speed
when approaching the interesting
way. and the sounding of the horn. He
stated. however, that when he first
saw defendants car it was only n lit
tie over 100 feet from him but he
continued on to cross the state high
way as there was plenty of time to
cross; although defendants car, ac-
cording to Bion's testimony, was ap-
preaching at n rate from 16 to "a miles
an hour. lie further stated that the
time between his first glimpse of de-
PENDANTS car and that of the collision
wasn't more than two or three sec
onds.
The defendant testified that the
plaintiffs car was approaching the
point of collision at rate of approx
liidltiN - lHIItS all 1louT, ana IN
creased its speed as it came nearer to
the State highway on which Defend
ant was driving. This testimony was
corroborated by dsinterested wit
nesses, some of whom were even
strangers to the parties to this suit
Defendant further testified that al
though he was using all proper power
and opportunity for observation. he
did not see plaintiffs car until it and
his own We're so near that avoidance
of collision was impossible although
he did all in his power to prevent it
when he did realize the situation.
long analysis of the record would
he of no interest except to the parties.
There re no peculiar or novel uues-
lions of law involved. The arguments
of counsel are confined to their views
upon questions of fact. We are of
opinion that the evidence does not pre-
ponderate in favor of the plaintiff
upon the issue of defendants ncgli-
gence. The recklessness or immature
Judgment of mere boy allowed to
operate car. a thing of too frequent
occurrence, brought about sudden
emergency in which defendant had
only few ticks of the watch in which
to act. Not being persuaded that this
emergency was created by defendants
negligence the mandate must be iudg-
mcnt for defendant.