The Washington times., 1917-03-31

Driving a vehicle in the middle of
street is neither negligence IN
itself nor a fact from which negli-
gence can be inferred, either under
the common law or statute.-Lin-
stroth VS.. Peper, 1ss S. w. (DIo.) 1125.
The burden OF proof as to plaintiffs
freedom from contributory negligence
Is on plaintiff in an action for negli-
gence in automobile accident causing
death or personal injury-Bancroft
VS.. Gotta, sS A Cvt) 915.
It Is not the rule in Vermont that
the passenger in a vehicle, whether
Public or private, is so Identified with
the driver, by virtue of this assoSia-
tion, that the drivers negligence is
imputable to the passenger-Ban-
croft VS.. Gotta, eS A (Vt) 915.
Where the driver of a motor car
was proceeding at reckless rate OF
speed and, though signaled, did not
slacken or stop, but drove so close to
a wagon and team that he struck the
teamster who was walking beside his
team to control them, the motorIst
was guilty of negligence rendering
him liable, particularly as he was vio-
lating one Of the penal laws of the
State.-Gardner VS.. Vance. 113 N. e.
(Ind.) 1006.
Under Acts 1910, c. 81, relative to
motor vehicles, and section 10, re-
quiring an automobile driver to stop
to allow a frightened horse to pass,
in plaintiffs ectiOn for injuries re-
ceived when his horse became fright
ened and was struck by an approach
ing car, an instruction leaving it to
the jury to say whether 1t was neces-
sary for the driver to stop when he
saw the horse was frightened, having
due regard for the safety of the per- 4
sons riding with him, was erroneous.
-Searcy VS.. Golden. 1sS S. W. (Ky.) |
109s.
Under Acts 1910, c, 81, relative to
motor vehicles, and providing that,
when 1t shall appear that any horse
is about to become frightened by the
approach of q motor vehicle, II shall
be the duty of the driver to stop un-
til the horse shall have passed. where /,
defendant automobile driver admitted |
that he did not stop when he saw |
that the horse plaintiff rode was |
frightened, verdict for defendant, in |
plaintiffs action for injuries received !
when the car struck his horse. could /,
not stand, being unsustained by the !
evidence.-Searcy v. Golden, 1SS S. w. |
tKy.) 109s.
In action for death caused by over
turning by defendants car OF auto
mobile in which plaintiffs intestate
was riding. it was proper for defend !
ant to testify that he saw a man mo-
tion to him, and describes the motion
by physical Illustration and state that I
He swung his hand toward him !
/ thought as though 1 would 1
come to him." and that thereupon de-
fendant started to go by, since what
defendant in fact understood regard
ing the purpose of those whose move
ments were TO be made in connection
with his own. was pertinent on the
issue OF his negligence.-Bancro v.
Gotta. 9S A Vt) 015.
Where plaintiffs decedent was in
jured in the street by defendants au-
tomobile, and recovery was sought
on the theory that the injury would
not have occurred had the automobile
driver compiled with a city ordinance
requiring him to drive as near the
righthand curb as possible. failure to
introduce the ordinance was a with
drawal OF such theory so that sub
mission to the jury predicatinE liabil-
ity on failure to keep as snear the
curb as possible was error:
there being no statutory or common
law rule to the same effect as the
ordinance.-Linstroth V. PEPPER, lSS |
8. w. (Mo.) 1125.
Under Acts 1910, C. 81, relative to
motor vehicles, and section o, pro-
hibiting driving in the country at
more than twenty miles an hour for
one-fourth Of a mile, making any ex-
cess nrinna facIn euIdnncn Of nnnlL-