New-York daily tribune., 1866-02-17
THE LAW OF THE ROAD.
The Case Of Fast Driving-Ths Rights q
Pedestrisss-A Warning 10 Fast Drive
ers-vcrdict fer the PiaiuiiE Of S3, 3,50os

Peoestrtans-A Warning 10 Fast Drive
erS-vcrdict fer the Piainii6T Of $500
SUPREME CoURT-CRcuIr-FEB ie.-BefcTe Justiss
FOSTER.
The case Of Matilda Moody agt. George A.
Osgood, was decided yesterday This case has occu.
pied Wednesday and Thursday. and has excited greAa
interest in tie sporting world The plaintiff In passing
from the Eigh.nye. 10 the sidewalk Mt their stop
ming place in Observation-Disclosures .ffth.st. was
knocked down and run over by the sleigh OF the de.
fendant Ii appeared from tie testimony that the
defendant had just t1rned from Harlem-ane into the
avenue, and was coming on at least at good pace
while the plaintiff crossing. When near he shouteo
to her, She turned round toward the sleigh steppeA
back pace aad struck by the pole OF the seleH
the runner going over her. The defendant took nss
in his sleigh to a hotel and thence to her owl house
The testimony OF the physicians showed that she bad
received grave and probably, permanent injury lhs
testimony while agreeing in the main facts vafieo
greatly as the partenars Inc case wa sueu 'nrs -
In charging the Judge alluded 10 the great interest,"
of the case alone to the parties Ii wlsa case oS
public interest because on the verdict depended u
great measure the settlement Of the respective rights
of the highway of those walking and driving on IT, II
large city like this. where these casualties oceas
often. 1t is well To lay DOWN some rue ioi 'ho s''
ernInent Of sucl, parties.
The plaintiff brings her claim for the Negligent soS
of the defendant. Two preliminary IropOsn%nss
evidence but by sach evidence as on the whole cass
shall satisfy your minds rst that it happened by the
negligence of the defendant; and second without heI
need be his sole oct III there were two or three en-
gagged jointly in the act If the defendant was one No
Is liable for the whole injury They are Jointly maple.
and the plaintiff may all. or some, or one. Tor hss
whole injury.
The whole evidence must also satisfy you Chat the
injury occurred without her negligence contributing W
it, Not that her act may not have concurred ID pro
ducing 1t. 1t was her act brought her there.
She mus. not only have been there. bat neglgentiy
there in order TO shield him from the enect OF MS neg
lgencc
that the defendant guilty OF negligence so ar 40
his act is concernedi In considering this you VIII nos
trust 10 any cited before you by counsel You muss
be satisfied of the paralelism Of such cases before oe
allow them to influence yon CounSe! nave ho ssa"uns
as such as witnesses in this court
1t is undsputabe that the Eghth'aye car had Jcss
arrived the termination OF its route ana tnat pain
tiff with three or four other passengers al once pr"
eeeded leave IT, without any further delay than wes
necessary the horses be 0osed and got out O tnc
way. II is shown that most Of the passengers got ous
the left side. IL appears that plnnti iet Dy ths
rear end Of the car Ii you consider it Of any import
ance you will determine from the evidence at Whlch
end she got out 1t clear that the rear OF the car wss
the north end This close to where the crosswak
OF the south side Of Onehundred and.twenty MIN st.
should have been aud she pessed from that piafos 70
the The defendant had been driving IN harem.
! lane with Lis brother, ard was followed Dy anothcf
sleigh. IN which Mr. Ogle and Alr. Hasett IheI
had been going at fair pace at least Ihey turneo
into the nyeure from One.hundred and twentiethst
and from there to One-bundred. d.and-twenty-hitn.st
there is said to be 81 got rise. The evidence IS tas
there a abrupt one on turning rom the sans
into the avenue.
Their coming was seen by several witnesses ard
several say that they were going at tie rate OF from
mile In three minutes 10 mile IN 3;lO. othef WIZ
nesses say at good road pace, smart trot ac ~ -
Tor YOU to say which gives you the cearsst kowedge
of the actual speed 1t is welknown fact that tnaI
was tho usual stoppingp.lce Of the cars tAe rae.
east Of the center OF the road; the distance IRON
the rail 10 the cubsione little over % feet. AS
matter Of law charge yon that person has rghS
10 drive rapidly at tue hazard OF lie or OF Injury
third persons unless he has his horse under eoasfol
No man can claim that he is not negligent wien dfy.
ing his horses at such rate Of speed as not to be aos
to control them against whatever Is likely TO happen.
Hoylapds testimony is worthy Of your special atten'
ton You should not give special conhderee 10 hn
increased credibility His testimony Is at yaIance
with all the Cher testimony. 1t Is for you to say
whether 1t is consistent win itse lie teIs you ,oss
when she stepped from the car the sleigh was solae an
or eight feet from the crossing. lie tells you that sue
was hailed from the sidewalk hy some one No other
witness testifes to this. That afterward she was
baied from the sleigh that she got nearly across ano
stepped back The plaintiff msst by tins account have
gone very mach faster than tie sleigh or instead q!
passing She would have come against its SIDE lie saa
ward when pressed by counsel on crossexamlhatIons
ut a smart rate. H yon can reconcile all tins DO -.
The rule of law is that If you beieye he IN any ons
thing deliberately lied you must dIsbeeye llO WAoss
evidence
have seen nothing IN any of the other witnesse6
calling for special remark Tbs plaintif herself saws
that when she got on tn step OF the car AZ" q,
and down. and saw az - . -, - - ,ooseu ~
Coming IRON, cue north and others coming from he
south Somc Of the witnesses say when she STATED the
distance OF the se was 60 10 30 feet; Others from "a
to 35 steps. She bad but - feet to CO. This VIII hs
some help in making your estimate Of the distances.
She moved at moderate gait and continued TO do ~
till her attention was attracted BY the sound from the
south This VIII give you guide for the speed OF the
sleigh.
H. from the moment when she was first seen by the
defendant he could have avoided her BY his act,
he was bound not 10 RELY on any acts Of hers He had
lnsi IN SIS uosh buaf.
ness to avoid her. II bis lookout TO do So unless
she Gi1 something negI gent. II you find be was noe
negligent that is the end of the case II he was then
you must inquire whether the plaintiff was not negi.
gent-and on this question the plaintiff has the affirm
atiye BY that You are 10 understand that If toe whole
case satisfies you that she not negligent that all
that is required. The evidence shows that she paused
on the step of the and looked both north and sout1
and saw vehicles both sides. and immediately laid
pose that she deliberately ran into daogeri The horses
OF the defendant were very fast horses You VIII take
account that she Is woman, and that the horseS
heads being toward her, she could not well Judge how
fast they were coming. 1t not enough convict her
Of negligence that she nisjudged but IT, seeing what
she did she had reasonable ground to think she could
escape she was not negligent
Defendant and his brother think II she had kept on,
be haiing 10 the le as he doing sue would have
escaped Others think differently. The whole is hero
question Of opinion. Her attention was al ested BY.
the defendants calling hor Why call to her there
no dsngeri You will take these matters into coz
sideration in passing upon the question of negligence
You VIII take into account who stopped ler. fQp are
not TO call her negligent account OF mistake IN
Judgment. No man eau pace another in peril. ano
then claim that lie negligent because under the
stress OF peril he did not act with the best Judgment,
The question for you is not whether she did the 0esf
possible thing in her peril bat whether she guilty
Of Legligence in getting into it. '
Unless the plaintiff discovered that the people were
driving fast she was not bound to suppose he was "a
driving. The Jaw will not compel presumption thss
one who has committed unlawful act viii continue
10 commit it. 1t is the duty of person who is travel.
horses highway n
not to create more than ordinary danger TO others
using IL. The law will not presume that person will