The Irish standard., 1905-08-05
A DANGEROUS DECISION.


jury and granting new trial in
case where damages were sustained
through the fright of horse at an
automobile Judge Brooks of the Dis
trict Court is reported to have said
that IAN automobile has as much right
upon the street as horse and that
those driving horses not city broke
do so at their own risk" We are not
familiar with the facts in this partic-
ular case, but the memorandum of the
judge, if correctly quoted, opens the
way for great deal of serious danger.
A horse mot city broke" is suscepti-
BILE of great many different mean
it incumbent upon every person driv,
ing a horse to have his horse under
full and complete control at all times,
even under the most trying circum-
stances. If this is to be the law Of
the road then indeed is the day of the
horse numbered for how, may we in.
quire, is horse to be city brokp"
without seeing the city, and how can
horse be brought upon the streets OF
our city without coming in contact
with the irresponsible automobile
driver?
We suppose that the Judge render
ing the decision would have to admit
tnat horses that were IN the city 0e-
fore the automobile came into use,
were "city broke" and yet those
horses were as unmanageable as any
other upon seeing the first automobile.
II Judge Brooks is correct the whole
burden of using the street is thrown
upon the driver of horses and auto
mobile owners and drivers are given
full license to destroy life and prop
erty, provided only that the property
or lives in question are lost while be-
ing hauled by horses. We do not pre-
tend to know the law in reference to
the road as applied to the automobile
but we do know that if the words of
Judge Brooks above quoted are the
law upon this question that no man is
safe while driving or riding horse
upon the streets.
1t must also follow from the judges
decision that when the present gener-
alton of horses passes away that 40
other horses can be used with any
degree of safety whatever, because,
under the definition, they are not "city
broke" 1t is a little strange that
such should be the determination of
a court. Horses have been used from
time beyond memory. They were
used to construct the streets of Min
neapolis and have been used from the
time before Minneapolis existed, while
automobiles are an invention of re-
cent date. Is it not peculiar that
Judge in determining the respective
rights of the two upon the street
should make it incumbent upon the
owner of a horse to have one that is
not afraid of an automobile, or if he
has one that is afraid, then he must
either keep off the streets or go upon
them at his own risk? No restriction
whatever is placed upon fantastic
forms that may be assumed by the
automobile. 1t may be painted in all
the colors of the rainbow with large
and conspicuous headlights, with a
framework of glass, and occupants
arrayed in flaming colors, with un-
slightly masks upon their faces. If
horses must be under complete con.
troll in the presence of these monsters
going along our roads at the rate of
i forty miles an hour, then, indeed, it
is time for us to vacate the streets
as far as the horse is concerned and
turn them over to the automobiles.
We think that it will strike the aver
age man as better law to hold that the
automobile must so use the street as
not to hinder or prevent others from