The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-04-24
LAW OF THE ROAD
JUDGE BARROW DEFINES RIGHTS
OF AUTOMOBILISTS WHICH
WILL CONTROL IN FUTURE.
"THEY MUST NOT EXCLUDE OTHER
CoNVEYANCES." SAYS COURT.


Rider of an ''Infernnl Machine
The first suit ever tried in the SUI
perior Court against the owner Of a
motorcycle was heard by Judge Bar
row yesterday, and resulted, after a
trial. lasting several hours, in a YER
dict for the old negro woman who in
stituted the suit.
Nanny" Williams as the old ne
gress is called, brought suit for The
recovery of s45 for injuries to her horse
and wagon. resulting from the fright
ening of her horse by r. Y. Connerat,
the rider of what she termed an in
fernal machine" The jury. after short
elaboration, awarded her sS5.
The case was not without its anus
ing features. The old woman and her
husband were sitting quietly in their
creaky old wagon, as their horse jog
ged along at d sleepy pace. Present
ly Mr.. Connerat shot by on his motor
cyun. The peculiar noises emanating
from the machine i'll its speedy pas
sage were new 10 Mr.. Horse, and he
Immediately proceeded to draw his
load at an accelerated rate of speed
down the thoroughfare, finally run
ming into the curb, and bringing the
wagon to a sudden standstll. and
throwing its occupants over a low iron
fence in flower garden.
Mrs Asendorff. into whose flower
beds the pair were so unceremonious-
IL thrown witnessed the accident. She
said that Nanny" looked like huge
umbrella, as she lay among the roses.
The soft bed was all that saved them
from injury, for though many rose
was injured, the negroes remained I'M
hurt. The wagon and horse were
somewhat the worse for the wear. Mr..
Connerat said that he saw no wagon,
and that any runaway resulting from
the noise of his machine was without
his knowledge.
In charging the jury Judge Barrow
delivered an opinion which will be of
value and interest to the riders of
motorcycles and the drivers of autos,
in which he defines clearly their rights
on the public highways. The courts
illusions to Tommie Foster, the Sa-
Vannah horse which created such
Juror by winning out in the North
as a 200 to 1 shot. created some mer-
riment. Judge Barrow's charge fol-
lows:
n
highway, and a public highway is a
way that is open to all the people.
That is the distinction between a pub
lie and a private way. A public high
way IS not restricted to the use of
those who desire to travel over it in
any one particular way, or by any
particular kind of vehicle. The peo-
pie have a right to walk on it. They
have right to ride on horseback.
They have a right to ride on it on BIZ
cycles or automobiles, and they have
a right to use it with any kind of We
hicle provided that the use of the road
BY the party with that vehicle does
not substantially exclude the use of
the road by other people with other
kinds of vehicle, and provided. also,
that they use the vehicle with ordi-
Larry care. Travellers are not confined
to the use of horses and ordinary car
riages upon highways. 1t is a matter
of considerable difficulty to determine
TO just what extent they may avail
themselves of new means of locomo-
ton, and new motor-power, such as
steam and electricity, but 1 think, in
the absence of anything to the contra
~, that new and improved means of
lOcomotion must be deemed to have
teen contemplated when our high
ways were laid out or dedicated pro-
vided they are such as do not unreas-
onably endanger or unduly interfere
with travel upon foot or by horses in
the ordinary manner. Whenever a
new means of locCmotion comes into
general use among travellers upon
highways, which is not dangerous
when properly managed, and which
does not unduly interfere with the
proper use of the highway in other
modes, l think 1t cannot be deemed
unlawful in itself
Iyo
biles. If an automobile is such a We
hicle that 1t can be used upon a high
way without substantially excluding
from the highway other modes of con-
veyance-if it is possible, in other
words, to so use an automobile on a
highway as not 10 prevent the use of
the highway by people with horses, or
by people with other modes of convey
ance-then the mere fact that the au-
tomobile was used on the highway
would not be a thing that ANYBODY
could complain of as violation of the
law. 1t would be consistent with the
uses and purposes for which the high
way was originally laid out to allow
IL to be used by all the people or any
of the people in any way that they
may see proper to use it, provided
that the mode of use which they choose
to adopt does not substantially exclude
all other people from using it in any
other way.
1t is a question of fact always when
damage case is brought before court
and jury, as to whether or not the de-
PENDANT, who is charged with being re-
sponsible for injuries, was negligent.
1t is a question for the jury to deter
mine what constitutes negligence
whether the party was negligent or
not--and the only service that l can
render you in this connection is to
give you few simple rules of law to
aid juror in finding out and declaring
whether or not a given party was or
was not negligent.
TO begin with, il is not negligence
for party to use, on a highway, any
continuance in the nature of a vehicle
which does not by its nature exclude
other people from the use of the high
way also. IT. however, a man sees
proper to use any sort of mode of To-
comotion on a public highway he must
use it with ordinary care.
ITO illustrate, it is lawful for a man
to ride a horse on public highway
man can ride a race horse on a pub
lie highway IL he desires. If you had
Tommy Foster down here, you would
have a right to ride Tommy Foster
down Bull street, if you chose to dc
so. but If you undertook to run a race
with Tommy Foster down Bull street
at full speed, that is, as fast as he
could run, the jury would probably
find that that was a negligent use OF
that mode OF conveyance, that is, the
horse, and calculated to destroy life OF
injure property.