The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1917-06-23
AUTO LITIGATION
In NEWS OF DAY
Rulings of the Courts Of In
terest to Every MOtOrist
A RECORD OF WEEKS CASES
Why's and When Of Both Criminal
and Civil Suits.

Failure to look and listen before
attempting to cross a railroad cross
ing in an automobile was grossly
negligent-Broussard va. Louisiana
Western Railroad Company, - So.
(La.) 6O6.
An automobile light does not light
the road for q reasonable distance"
unless II is illuminated for the
distance required for stopping the
yehiele.-F1sher VS.. o'Brien, 1872 p.
(Kans.) 81.
1t is the duty of a traveller on q
public street over which street cars
are operated to look for approaching
cars, and, II the street is obstructed.
to listen, and in some instances to
43o. '1---'
Independently of any statute, IL is
negligence as q matter of law to drive
an automobile along the highway on
dark night at such speed that Il
cannot be stopped within the distance
that objects can be seen ahead of II.
81. '
The defense OF want Of considera-
ton Is not available on trial Of an
action on notes given for a balance
due on the purchase price of an auto
mobile II the evidence shows that
there was any consideration, no mat
ter how small-Vreeiand VS.. Murray
le2 P. (colo.) 14s.
The negligence, II any, of an ex-
perienced chauffeur on an automobile
operated as q legal transfer in at
tempting TO cross q railroad crossing
without looking and listening. was
not impusable to q passenger for hire.
-BrouEsard VS.. Louisiana Western
Railroad Company, % So. (La.) 606
A motorman may, within the limits of
reasonable prudence and fair judgment.
presume that an adult either will not
enter the range Of danger created by an
approaching street car. or that he will
remove himself or his vehicle therefrom
before q collision occurA-Ross VS.. Bran
don, % So. (Ala-) 80.
In an action for injuries received when
PLAINTIFF was struck by a motor truck,
an instruction that. IL when near COL
lision plaintiff jumped from his wagon
in front OF the truck. when II was too
near to stop II. he could not recover.
sufficiently covered that issue.-Epstein
va Rupert. 90 A (Md) SIS
A municipality cannot escape liability
for injuries to an automobile driver
when the car ran over an embankment
which was not rallied. on the ground
that the driver was guilty Of contribu-
tory negligence. in the absence of con-
elusive proof that ordinary men would
not have acted as he did in the prem
ises.-Miner VS.. City Of Franklin. 80 A
IN. H) 6i7.
Ono who is injured by reason Of a de-
fective bridge while riding in q private
vehicle may recover from a county
otherwise liable. notwithstanding the
negligence Of the driver. which may have
contributed to produce the injury; the
injured party being free from negligence !
and having no authority or control over
the driver.-Reudelhuber VS.. Douglas
county, ISL n. W. (Neb.) ia
In action for work and labor under
agreement to put defendants automobile
In frst-class condition. no price being
dxed. defendant could not set on an
amount paid later to another repair man |
to complete putting the car into first |
class shape: the latter services not be- |
ing required because Of plaintiffs negli- |
gence or injury to the car.-George !
Irving Company v. Acunto, 1s2 N. Y.
s. s1s.
Where a traveller in an automobile |
on approaching q street railway was |
travelling at such speed that he could |
not stop in time to avoid an approach
ing street car, and attempted to |
beat" the street car over the crossing |
at the point toward which he was
moving, he was guilty OF contributory |
negligence, both in attempting to /
cross in front OF the car and in ap-
preaching at an excessive speed
Ross VS.. Brandon. 70 So. (Ala-) <Ss.
In an action against the driver Of
an automobile on account OF personal
INJURY resulting from a collision, al