Ins v. Franklin County Agricultural Soc.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1905
• Citation: 62 A. 708,100 Me. 565
• Parties: INS v. FRANKLIN COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOC.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

62 A. 708

100 Me. 565

INS

v. FRANKLIN COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOC.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 19, 1905.

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Franklin County.

Action by Edwin M. Higgins against the Franklin County Agricultural Society. "Verdict for plaintiff. On motion for new trial. Overruled.

Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, and also to recover for damages to his wagon, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant The defendant, on the 17th day of September, 1903, was holding a fair on its grounds at Farmington, and had under its care and control a half-mile race track or a race course for speeding and racing horses. At a time when a race was not in progress the plaintiff undertook to drive across the track with his horse and wagon, and, while so doing, his wagon was struck and himself injured by a rapidly driven vehicle, with which the driver was giving his horse "a warming up mile" preparatory to a race later in the afternoon.

Argued before EMERY, STROUT, SAVAGE, POWERS, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

Frank W. Butler, for plaintiff. Joseph C. Holman, for defendant.

EMERY, J. The defendant society was holding a fair on its grounds arranged for that purpose. On these grounds was the usual half mile track for the exercising, speeding, and racing of horses. Outside of this track was space used for various purposes. An admission fee was charged and paid at the outer entrance, and visitors having thus entered the grounds were permitted to cross the track, when not in use for horses, to the space within the track. The passageway to and across the track was barred by a rope while the track was in use, which rope was lowered to the ground by a servant of the company, employed for that purpose, when the track was clear, permitting visitors to cross the track to the interior space. The plaintiff had paid the admission fee, and had driven upon the grounds up to the track at the crossing, barred by the rope. He then started to cross the track, and, when part way across, his carriage was struck and himself injured by a rapidly driven vehicle, with which the driver was speeding his horse along the track. There was evidence that the attendant guarding the passageway across the track lowered the barring rope to the ground in such a manner as to be an invitation to the plaintiff to attempt the crossing when he did, or an assurance to him that the track was then clear for crossing. The defendant strongly denies this, and insists that the rope was lowered only for an instant to enable a team to leave the track, and that the plaintiff practically forced his way past the attendant and barrier. We are not satisfied,...