Ward v. Me. Cent. R. Co.

Decision Date17 January 1902
PartiesWARD v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

The defendant's passenger station building at the Freeport station is between its main-line tracks, on the south, and its freight tracks, on the north, and is about 200 feet westerly of Bow street,—a street running southerly from the village of Freeport, and which crosses the railroad tracks at about a right angle. A platform extends from the station building, along one of the main tracks, westerly. Near by to Bow street, between the northerly side of this platform and the nearest freight track, there is an open space, extending from Bow street to the station building, 19 1/2 feet wide at the street, and 32 1/2 feet wide at the platform on the easterly side of the station building. This open space is used as a passageway and driveway for persons having occasion to drive to the station, and the whole of the space is open and suitable for this purpose. Access to this open space or driveway is had from Bow street, and also by chiving over the freight tracks where there are plank crossings, westerly of the street, and nearer the eastern end of the station.

On the day of the accident, in the forenoon, the plaintiff's intestate drove along Bow street, southerly from the direction of Freeport village, to the gate at the railroad crossing north of the freight track, in an open wagon, with a barrel of potatoes in the wagon, back of the seat. When he reached the crossing, this gate was down; a freight train having previously arrived from Portland, which at that time and before had been upon the different freight tracks; the trainmen being engaged in shifting cars, and making up the train to proceed easterly. Just previous to this, the locomotive had backed in westerly from the street towards the freight house west from the passenger station, and the gatekeeper raised the gates upon both sides of the crossing to allow the deceased to pass upon the highway. The deceased drove across the freight track, and then turned into the driveway to the station. After driving to within about 10 feet of the platform on the easterly side of the station building, he backed his wagon up to the platform extending along the main track towards Bow street, for the evident purpose of unloading the barrel onto this platform. His horse's head, therefore, was towards the main freight track. Before unloading the barrel, he went forward towards the freight track, so that he could look by the passenger station, undoubtedly for the purpose of seeing where the freight train then was, and what was being done with it. About this time the freight train started easterly on the main freight track in the direction of Bow street, making the usual noises caused by ringing the bell, the escape of steam, etc. Thereupon the plaintiff's horse became, to some extent, frightened, and the deceased took hold of the horse's bridle and attempted to hold him. There is some difference in the description by the eyewitnesses as to the conduct of the horse, and as to what extent he showed evidences of fright. Some of the witnesses (those for the defense) say that the horse was all the time under control until the last plunge, which resulted fatally for the deceased; and this is undoubtedly true, to the extent that the deceased continued to keep his hold on the horse's bridle and to remain upon his feet, but, beyond this, it appears from the evidence that the horse had quite as much control over the man as the man did over the horse. He was moving about all of the time. As one witness expressed it, "The horse was in motion all the time, and was moving Mr. Ward [the deceased] first one way and then the other, by his head." In further describing the scene, the same witness said, "The horse once made a plunge with Mr. Ward, and came up so that once, as near as I could tell, his foot struck (Official.)

Action by Albert Ward against the Maine Central Railroad Company for the death of Albion Ward on the defendant's station grounds. Verdict for $2,031.81. Motion for new trial granted on conditions.

The following is a plat of the station grounds:

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE and POWERS, JJ.

E. Foster, O. H. Hersey, and H. E. Coolidge, for plaintiff.

W. H. White and S. M. Carter, for defendant.

WISWELL, C. J. The defendant's passenger station building at the Freeport station is between its main-line tracks, on the south, and its freight tracks, on the north, and is about 200 feet westerly of Bow street—a street running southerly from the village of Freeport, and which crosses the railroad tracks at about a right angle. A platform extends from the station building, along one of the main tracks, westerly nearly to Bow street. Between the northerly side of this platform and the nearest freight track there is an open space extending from Bow street to the station building, 19 1/2 feet wide at the street, and 32 1/2 feet wide at the platform on the easterly side of the station building. This open space is used as a passageway and driveway for persons having occasion to drive to the station, and the whole of the space is open and suitable for this purpose. Access to this open space or driveway is had from Bow street, and also by driving over the freight tracks where there are plank crossings, westerly of the street, and nearer the eastern end of the station.

On the day of the accident, in the forenoon, the plaintiff's intestate drove along Bow street southerly from the direction of Freeport village to the gate at the railroad crossing north of the freight track, in an open wagon, with a barrel of potatoes in the wagon, back of the seat. When he reached the crossing this gate was down; a freight train having previously arrived from Portland, which at that time and before had been upon the different freight tracks; the trainmen being engaged in shifting cars, and making up the train to proceed easterly. Just previous to this the locomotive had backed in westerly from the street towards the freight house west from the passenger station, and the gatekeeper raised the gates upon both sides of the crossing to allow the deceased to pass upon the highway. The deceased drove across the freight track, and then turned into the driveway to the station. After driving to within about 10 feet of the platform on the easterly side of the station building, he backed his wagon up to the platform extending along the main track towards Bow street, for the evident purpose of unloading the barrel onto this platform. His horse's head, therefore, was towards the main freight track. Before unloading his barrel, he went forward towards the freight track, so that he could look by the passenger station, undoubtedly for the purpose of seeing where the freight...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Santa Fe P. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ford
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 12 Mayo 1906
    ... ... Angeles T. Ry. Co., 143 Cal. 31, 101 Am. St. Rep. 68, 76 ... P. 719, 727, 728; Gilbert v. Erie Ry. Co., 97 F ... 747, 38 C.C.A. 408; Ward v. Maine Central Ry. Co., ... 96 Me. 136, 51 A. 947, 950; O'Brien v ... McGlinchy, 68 Me. 552; Sego v. Southern Pac. R.R ... Co., 137 Cal. 405, ... Ry. Co. v. Jazo, (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S.W. 712. The ... notice or warning should be definite and sufficient ... Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Hoffman, Admx., 67 Ill ... 287. The plaintiff is not called upon to anticipate any ... negligence on the part of defendant in running ... ...
  • Duggan v. Bay State St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 28 Mayo 1918
    ...E. 367,52 L. R. A. 655, 79 Am. St. Rep. 226;Shadduck v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Ry., 179 Mich. 433, 440, 146 N. W. 238;Ward v. Maine Central R. R., 96 Me. 136, 51 Atl. 947;Greenwood v. Boston & Maine R. R., 77 N. H. 101, 88 Atl. 217;Wright v. Boston & Maine R. R., 74 N. H. 128, 134, 65 Atl. ......
  • Bourrett v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 26 Octubre 1911
    ... ... Doctrine of Last Clear Chance, by Geo. W. Payne, in 66 ... [132 N.W. 978] ...           Cent ... Law J. 215. See, also, Richmond Traction Co. v ... Martin , 102 Va. 206 (45 S.E. 886); Ward v ... Railway , 96 Me. 136 (51 A. 947); ... ...
  • Bourrett v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 26 Octubre 1911
    ...Chance, by Geo. W. Payne, in 66 Cent. Law J. 215. See, also, Richmond Traction Co. v. Martin, 102 Va. 209, 45 S. E. 886;Ward v. Railway, 96 Me. 136, 51 Atl. 947;Kellny v. Railway, 101 Mo. 67, 13 S. W. 806, 8 L. R. A. 783. A clear statement of the rule, regardless of nomenclature, has seemed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT