Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-12-13
RESCRIPT SUSTA|NS
4. &k. RAILROAD IN
MOVE FOR EXCEPTIONS

Inc exceptions or the defendant
corporation were sustained by the
law court In a recent Kennebeo
County rescript drawn by Justice
Deasy and bearing upon the case Of
William E. Dill ct al, Administrator
VS.. The Androscoggin and Kennebec
Railway Company. The rescript
reads as follows:
The motorman of a trolley car
when approaching highway functions
is required to exercise due care md
vigilance, according to the exlgencies
or the situation, to have his car I'M
der such control. in anticipation of
the crossing of teams, that it may be
stopped at the junction in season to
prevent a collision with teams that
may suddenly turn to drive over the
track.
The rule as thus stated applies to
highway junction points. With as
great reason it is applicable to sit
uatlons where a railroad track cross
es a street which it traverses, espec-
tally where, it crosses from the right
to the left side.
Having his car so under control
the motorman is required at all times
to exercise due care and vigilance to
| avoid collisions, especially at cross
lngS, and he must before making a.
crossing stop if necessary to avoid
a collision with an approaching auto
mobile or other vehicle. His duty is
analogous to that of the driver of a
I motor car who crosses a street from
right to left to enter a connecting
road or driveway.
But to this rule there is an import
! ant qualification. The moterman is
not bound to stop whenever he sees
an approaching motor car. He has
| duties to his own passengers who are
entitled to reasonably speedy trans
portation. He may assume, at all
| events, until the contrary appears,
| that approaching automobiles will be
driven carefully. He is bound
to anticipate negligence on the part
| OF their drivers. In this connection
the negligence of an automobile
driver. though not imputable to his
passenger is material.
| In an action growing out of COL
lls1on between an automobile and a
trolley car, the negligence of the au-
tomobile driver is not imputable to
person who is riding with such
driver as mere passenger. In so far
however as such negligence may have
affected and qualified the duty of the
! defendants servant it is matter for
the Jury's consideration.
Exceptions sustained.
| Cumberland County Case
The exceptions of the plaintiff were
! overruled in a rescript in the Cum
| berland County case of Roland An.
derson pro ami VS.. the Androscoggin
Pulp Co., which was drawn by Chief
| Justice Scott Wilson. The rescript:
Where it appears that the plaintiff
| was not in the employ of the de-
PENDANT. but was on the premises of
the defendant only by permission or.
sufferance OF the workmen and a
foreman who had no authority to
employ, and for his own pleasure or
| the convenience of the workmen was
allowed to operate some of the ma
chimes.
Held:
That the plaintiff was not the SER
vant of the defendant but as to the
defendant was trespasser or a mere
! licensee to whom the defendant owed
no duty. except not to wantonly in
jure him.
That the burden Of affirmatively
showing due care commensurate
with his years rests on minor who
is injured as we'll as on an adult, and
the evidence in the case fails to show
how the accident occurred or wheth-
er the plaintiff exercised any care to
avoid it.
Exceptions overruled.