The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-19
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1865.
The Law of the Road.

fatally injured by wagon driven at an uu
lawful rate OF speed, Is a very painful one He
died on Saturday morning, at the Girard
House, where, with his wife and child he was
stopping on a visit to this city. 1t is not our
purpose to PREJUDICE the affair. The driver of
the wagon has been committed to answer at
court on charge of homicide, and it would
be unkind as we'll as unjust, to embarrass his
defense by exciting public prejudice against
him. He is In the hands of the ministers of
ustice, and there we leave him for the present.
But it is high time that the law of the road
should be settled by judicial exposition and
exemplary execution Of It, in order that all
may equally understand and observe it, and
the rights of all be thereby preserved The
highways of a city are for the common
use of the citizens, but they must be used in
lawful manner. While 1t is true that each
one is required to exercise ordinary
care for selfprotection in passing to
and fro, all are required to exercise equal
care not to do injury to any indi-
vidual passenger. But those who are on
horseback or in vehicles seem to think that
they possess greater privileges than tnose who
as to the right OF way, they have the advan-
tage. 1t must have struck every one who has
given any attention to the subject, that per-
sons who ride and drive IN our streets, act pre-
cisely as if the streets belonged exclusively or
especially to them; and that, therefore, every
body else is bound to look out for them and
keep out Of Their way, and that they need look
ont for md
over whom they please.
This, however is neither the law of the,
highway. nor is it common sense or reason, on
which all law protesses to be founded. AS
carelessne3s in the use OF a crowded thorough
fare by those who ride or drive through it,
may result in more serious injury than equal
carelessness by any one on foot, it would
seem but right that the former should be held
to the exercise of so much greater care, in
their use of the public streets, as the injury
their negligence may cause is greater than
could possibly or probably result from like
negligence on the part OF a pedestrian. But
the violation, in practice, OF this sound rule,
constantly puts in peril the lives of all foot
passengers on the treets of our cities (who
and, as natural consequence, we are CONT
nually hearing of such cases as that of DR..
MOUNT.
The evil must be corrected, and it can only
be corrected by clearly defining what the law
of the street is, and making warning examples
OF those who violate it. A case in point has
just been decided in the Supreme Court OF
New York. which, the Judge said, would, as
far as the verdict of jury could do it, settle
the rights to the highway "of those who are
walking on the one hand, and those who are
riding or driving on the other" MATILDA
Moody, while crossing to the sidewalk from
a city pass enger railway car, on Eighth
avenue, was run over and seriously hurt by
a team and sleigh, driven at an unlawful
speed by GEORGE OsGooD. She brought
suit for damages, and, after brief absence,
the jury rendered verdict for plaintiff for
$500, and the Court granted an additional
allowance of five per cent. Judge FOSTER,
who tried the case, after asserting the general
principle that all persons are required to use
reasonable care for their own safety while in
the public streets, said:-
"As matter OF law he would charge that
person has no right TO drive rapidly in the
streets OF New York, TO the hazard of the life,
OF injury TO, any person unless he can keep his
horses under control. Those who will drive so
fast as not to be able to keep their horses in
hand, are bound at their peril to know it,
whether they do or not"
That enuncietes the law as regards fast
driving and the drivers control of his horses.
But Judge FOSTER settled a still more i'm
portant point The defendant in the case
sought to excuse himself by proving that he
called TO the aoondn to get out of his auay,
when be, as shown, was driving in public
street at the rate of mile in three minutes !! (!
On this branch of the case we have the fol-
lowing report
''The Court charged that if from the moment
she was seen by deendant-not from the time he
shouted to her-he could avoid her by his own
act, he had no r3gH to depend upon her to get OiL
Of the a0dy, and no business TO shout TO her TO
drtUe her out Of the road II he could duOid her him
Sets a man cOid mol drlUe another out of the
road Oy telling him there l0Gs danger, or making 10
dangerous tor han; though the Court l0Jltd not
say the defendant did so. 1t was the business of
the defendant to AVOID her the moment he saw
her. especially If driving al rapid rate"
This contains the pith of the whole matter.
A walker in the streets of city has, at least,
as much right to the road as a citizen who is
riding or driving, and the latter is not allowed
by the law, to run down any pedestrian-man,
woman, or child-when his gait is unlawful
and then justify himself Oy proving that he
halIooed to the lodIker to get out of his aoay.
The driver, instead of having the exclusive
right of Way, has, at most no preater rioht