Year: 1875




MoNDAY.-Susan M. Pulen, administrator ol
David P. PuIleu. vs. Grand Trunk Railroad Com
pany.


Action to recover for injuries to her husband re-
sulting in DEATH at Yarmouth. August 2nd, 1908. "A
remedy was tried by indictment under the STATUTE
for causing the death of Pullen and two Verdcts or
the State assessing damages were set aslde one YER
dict was set aside the ground that Fuieh was o'
killed outright but that he survived ana retalheu MS
senses some three hours after the collision tnat
cansed his death. So the plaintln brings ths ciVh
action upder the statute and says August End, 1862
NV husband left our home in Lisbon to labor upon
tbe Portland water works; took the Maine Central
train at Auburn; waited for the Grand Trunk train
at Dauyille junction; the two trains connected
thence nroceeded towards Portland under the d1rec-
tiop of Grand Trunk conductor and arrived safely
at Yarmouth station and there switched of on to
side track and delayed some fifteen minutes waiting
for the coming of the Grand Trunk express train
from Portland to Montreal which that season passed
through without stopping at Yarmouth station.
While delaying, the conductor, braksmen and many
of the passengers Pulen among the NUMBER left the
train went on to the station platform, Pulen went
behind the tank to answer a call, and hearing the
signal for his train to leave, rushed upon the
platform in partial dishabe, sprnging forward for





press train full in front; tried to swing round and
clear the engine, but was caught by the cylinder and
knocked prosrate upon the platform. The stroke of
the engine ruptured his lungs. From the effects of
this blow, after surviving three hours, he died.
charge the Grand Trunk with causing his death by
negligence and want of care in four particulars.


First. In running their express train too fast.


Second. In Signalling their passengers to come
board when they did and before the express train had
passed. '-..


Third. In the arrangement of their siding running
their down tram out upon the siding and giving the
accommodation of the station to the express train
which did not stop there.


Fourth. In starting out their train before the
press train went by. f+ Is ....e .a ,lt ..-.-..


Defense-Pullen lost his life through his negli
gence and through no fault of ours. 1t is the GUS
tom of through trains to take the regular track and
for waiting trains to take the sidngs. The CALL all
aboard was given by the conductor when the express
train whistled mile away, in ample time for all
to get on board before the arrival of the
express tran True the statute requires that trains
shall be slowed at highway crossings to six miles an
hour, but this engine struck Pullen rods before 1t
reached the crossng and at the station no law nor
custom obliged them to pass at less than ordinary
speed. If fPullen had promptly answered the con-
ductor's CALL "All aboard,' there would have been
no cause for delaying the down train after the up
train had passed the switch. Pullen was drinking
man intoxicated at the time At best, If Pullen had
innocently temporarily lost his faculties, then this
was an accident which must fall where it happened,
and not an injury entitled to legal redress 1t is
dansnuns absque ajuria; hurt to Pullen, but not
violation of law by the Grand Trunk. ..'''-'


Reply-True, he had drunk some beer, but was not
intoxicated or careless d. G.0f f b. G aF


The court instructed the jury in substance that the
statute requiring trains to be slowed at crossings was
to protect passengers upon highways and did not ap-
ply to this case, but left it to the jury to find as
matter of fact whether the express train at care
less speed passed the station. On the question OF
damages, the court said if Pullen had been injured
and had survived, there would be no difficulty in
laying down the rules of law by which the damages
are to be assessed. That would include bodily pain,
mental anguish, his doctors BILL necessary medical
attendance and nursing and loss of time he would be
disabled from labor and to take into account If it
was permanent injury, how far he would be dis
abled in the future from performing his usual labor
That would have been the rule if Pullen had surviv
ed to prosecute an action in his own name; but in
this case the evidence tends to show that in some
two or three hours he died of the injury and new
clement comes in, in relation to which, after most
digent search by myself and by Of my associates
upon the bench, we find no direct adjudication, be-
cause it is rule of the common law that the death
of person generally shall not be the subject OF
pecuniary consideration, on the ground that human


life is entirely beyond all pecuniary estimation. This
is a new case occurring under our statute and in
struct YOU on the matter of damage in this case and
for the purpose of this trial that you should be gov
erned by the same directions which have suggested
to You would have been the rule if Pulen had sur
vived to bring the action in his own name, and in
addition to that which his services over and above
his own support would have been worth in money,
had he not been thus injured.


The verdict was for the defendant. -.,a


Haskell with Talbot for plaintiff. .gas...s


Rands for defendant.


There being no more cases for the jury they were
discharged finally.