The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-09-29

The status Of the automobile under the
law OF negligence has been defined in two
recent decisions of the United states Circuit
Court OF Appeals for the Third Circuit. In
which the court holds that II the driver Of
IA" automob bile takes tn" precautions that
IN" law demands there will he few automo-
bile crossing accidents
In the New York central Company vs.
Muidment ne Ped 81 the court said.
with the coming Into zee 81 tic automobile
new questions a. u reciprocal rights and duu's
Of the pubi' and 'hA vehicle have arisen ard will
continue W arise. NJ no plare are those relations
more important Than az the grade crossings Of
railroads. The main ConsidcrA uon hitheT ~ ui'h
reference IA such eros sings has been the danger
Ia those crossing ioncerous. swiftly moNiGg
lo-ompu,e. tplIoWed by q heavy train. Is sphIert
20 slght danger by tossing foot rassenxcr
or span - hursss and 4 Nchirie but WHEN the
passing vehicle j. pnnirrous steel stfur ture
10 tfrest'1s nog only ne safou. 20 IT, own o'.u.
pant, but AIsn those on the colndng tain Md
sH'n to The perfect control - 81. y a mashine -
sdici the fAr TOR - nigh sp~~,i me t-mp'a ton
o. Ga-p ot". trs"s A. '"rrn~ sped ma - the
AHtpruN.Ir. uuir~, uar~f. %. controlled a neN And
grove ri.fr'1' ~ grade rrp>slng danger.
uu the ,tHrr hagI when properly controlled
Thu n"v'r'gl machine russ"s.es oApsbiI,lr> rru.
tr.bluug 20 safety When a dri, - o. horses a.
t~mpis to make crossing aud i ddeniy con
fro1tsd ~ train. dirlculur~ fscr Mira TO ~hlrh
IN. ANTON. bile Is not subir,t He cannot drive
co>e tp the trirs ~ stop th'rr without rlsk ~
~, horse. frieH' ~ning shying or oNrrturning his
~hicl~ lie cannot well Ieav- his hor-S standing
and 70 rr ru~s forward 10 the track IA gei an IN
ob,'r,gi view and ipnN ior owning trains he
q ghl have Co lead hls hor.c or team w,'h him.
rh-s@ grrca uons the automobile driver osn take
caTcfuiS AMI deliberately snd Sithogt N" ner
you,ne,s crumun,,r,e . BY frlk,sn-i hor.,
~ oiu thus ~ zen that an sutowobiIe driver
IA. me opportunity II n" ''ustlpn l' ono ~ IN
certainty ~ little Inst Hnc"rtsinty on ne .ids
% >A'sis win i~ss incHuy ~nlsnc-. ~ danger and
more rely ihrn me drive ~ a hpr>r such
bslrg the rasc. me ~ both from The standpoint
Of his uuu >Af~'y AMI ~ menace bIs ma rhtns
T. FEB 'hr .A'rN - Others should Iu ur~ting th.s~
n'W conditions rigdN lnlI th~ sgtuwnbI driver
80 such reasonable care ana urccaUtnu 60 'n HI,
vwu ,af.N AMI he ,.friy q h- travelling n.b
llr y rhe law irmanc~ sch csrs. and hos~
'r'ssius raN- .urh rare and not 'hanoe th~ir
.rpfs~ton the possibilities ~ tpmobiig crossing
accident. vlIl be %. 'uIiris~a
Ia ErpUnsr ~ Pennsyiyana " e.
Usl ' 81 81. the court emphasized 10.
duty - on. operating IN automobile 10
loON md listen uhsn approaching railroad
tra"A here here ~ an unob-t ru'ici VISION.
anu such T--r-"n va- held guilty 81 ,ontf.bu-
tory negligence, pr"cluding his recovery
Of damages. TOR o'ntfttng to tate adequate
pr~ca ttIOn
The COR. applied 'hN usual rules ~
n.gl gsnr.. to fh. 81 he~ rtdsTs IN the vehicles
n vas held that n person riding IN an auto
mobile ~ ~" nv ifstton ~ the Nv ner and
driver. WITH whom b. o. 'pi~d front -sai
va- required to eNeT,tss care for h. own
safety equally With The driver. and y here
atthuu' objection ur protest 10 urrrni'fe cd
The driver to 20 nrgligsutlv upon the raj.
road crossing ~ front ~ an approa' hing
train without stopping q" look or listen
exercising no care on his oVn part to -ae
that the crossing Na- safe, even though Tho
view % the track Na- oh-tric'ed 10 within
. fs, feet from 80 'raCh no - chsrgsablr
with cOntribVtory negligence and oauno'
recover.
II vas held IN tho case that woman riding
on the rear -~a'. with tNo persons n the
-~at IN front and one h--da her. was not
charEeat's With Cuniributorv negligence
a. . matter ~ law be,au~s she did not look
mr. listen. In the absence ~ "Nidsnce thai
she could have sen the train or that -hs
B n.v or could have seen that tho car was
approaching crossing.