Robinson v. Rockland, T. & C. St. Ry.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1904
• Citation: 99 Me. 47,58 A. 57
• Parties: ROBINSON v. ROCKLAND, T. & C. ST. RY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

58 A. 57

99 Me. 47

ROBINSON

v. ROCKLAND, T. & C. ST. RY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 16, 1904.

(Official.)

On motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Knox County.

Action by Charles W. Robinson against the Rockland, Thomaston & Camden Street Railway. Verdict for plaintiff. New trial granted.

Case for injuries to a traveler on the highway, and to his horse and wagon, alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence.

The plea was the general issue. The verdict in favor of plaintiff was for $1,116.38.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, POWERS, PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

L. F. Starrett and L. M. Staples, for plaintiff.

O. D. Baker and C. E. & A. S. Littlefield, for defendant.

POWERS, J. Action on the case to recover for injuries to the plaintiff and his team received ill a collision at Walker's Crossing, in Thomaston, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in the running and management of one of its construction cars on the morning of July 16, 1902. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant moves to set it aside as against evidence.

While the evidence as to the defendant's negligence is very conflicting, yet the jury had the advantage, which we cannot have, of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and, if they believed those of the plaintiff, we think they were fairly justified in finding that, in view of the conditions existing at this crossing at the time of the collision, the car was running at such a high rate of speed as was inconsistent with a reasonable regard for the lives and safety of persons having occasion to cross the track at this point.

This brings us to the principal ground relied upon in support of the motion—that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care, and that such want of due care on his part contributed directly to cause the injury complained of.

The place where the injury occurred was a country crossing. The ear was going from Thomaston to Warren in a general northwesterly direction, and several hundred feet southeasterly of the crossing the track leaves the side of the road, and continues through the fields to, across, and beyond the South Warren Road. The plaintiff testified that he was traveling along this road in an easterly direction, walking his horse, and did not see or hear the approaching car until his horse's feet were on the track and the car itself only about 140 feet away. Judging it safer to go ahead than attempt to back or turn, he shouted to and struck his horse with the reins, but before he could cross the track the car struck his team. Just before coming to the crossing, the car ran through a cut, the bank of which, as it existed at the time of the collision, the plaintiff claimed, prevented his seeing more than 140 feet through the cut until his horse was upon the track. The defendant's witnesses testified that, from 25 to 30 feet westerly of the track, one traveling in the road could see entirely through the cut and many hundred feet up the track; but there was much conflicting evidence at the trial as to whether the bank of this cut had been altered since the accident so as to change the range of vision of one in the plaintiff's position. The hour was about half past 5 in the morning, and the plaintiff knew the conditions existing at this crossing, as he had been over it in a team to his work each morning for several months. He knew that this construction car ran on no regular time, but generally passed along about this hour in the morning for the...