Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/612

 The Supreme Court of Maine. one hand, and as agents of the town on the other hand; and has become practically a vade mecum for the active practitioner. In Libby v. Me. Cent. R. R. Co., 85 Maine, 34, the plaintiff, a postal clerk, re covered a verdict of $9558, for injuries re ceived by the wrecking of the train on which he was employed, and which ran into a wash-out caused by a sudden and violent storm and flood. The plaintiff rested his case on the defendant's negligence, both for improper construction and maintenance of a culvert and want of proper inspection. These questions, including the law regulat ing the relation between the passenger and common carrier, are fully reviewed with references to many decided cases in the American and English courts. Judge Foster's opinion, sustaining the verdict for $6000, holds upon the facts that : " Under circumstances of more than ordinary peril, the company should inspect its line with more than ordinary promptitude, particu larly those portions which are the most liable to injury by storm or flood. The greater the peril, the greater the vigilance demanded." Judge Foster has written many other opinions for the court in personal injury cases, but the following, in Mundle v. Hill Mfg. Co., must suffice for the present pur pose of showing the reader his familiarity with, and clear statement of, this branch of the law of torts. The plaintiff in this case recovered a verdict for injuries to her foot. While walking across the mill floor in the dressing-room, where she was employed, she stuck a splinter into her foot, causing a painful wound of long duration. The de fective condition of the floor was not denied, but it appeared that the plaintiff knew its condition and did not make any complaint or request for its repair. Under these facts the opinion treats and discusses the principles of the law which apply to voluntarily assuming risks, and holds that where the employee has full knowledge and

569

appreciation of the danger to which he is exposed and consents to serve in the way and manner in which the business is con ducted, he has no legal ground of com plaint, even if reasonable precautions have been neglected by the employer, and an injury has been received. The distinction between contributory negligence and volun tarily assuming risks, not always observed in such cases, is carefully drawn and well defined in the case. Peabody v. Maguire, 79 Maine, 572 (sales), Green v. Jones, 76 Maine, 563 (specific performance), and Owen v. Roberts, 81 Maine, 439 (insolvency as affecting at tachments by foreign creditors) are, among others opinions of the Judge, frequently cited. Those who are acquainted with his opin ions characterize them as sound and strong in judgment, inclining to fullness, with good power of statement. His style is natural, lucid, accurate and well sustained, and he moves with a good vocabulary without attempting to be ornate. Not given to pro lixity, he sometimes and when necessary discusses decided cases in the reports in a manner reminding one of the essay style, which delights the searcher for law by his analysis and comparison and at the same time makes him a favorite of the young lawyers. There is a noticeable case in these dis cussions of decided cases. It arises from diligent study, a tenacious memory of all that he reads, and a good system of annota tion to which he has adhered from the beginning. His manuscript is neat and perfect, and reminds one of Lavater's saying: " Individ ual handwriting is inimitable — the emana tion of the mind." Although he did not complete his college course, by reason of his entering the mili tary service, his alma mater did not fail to recognize his worth and merit and conferred on him the usual degree at the graduation