The Washington times., 1917-04-07
AUTOLITIGATTON
IN CURRENT NEWS
Rulings of the Courts in This
Weeks Cases of Interest
to Motorists.

Provision in a fire policy that gaso-
lene shall not be kept, used or al
lowed" on the premises means q per-
manent keeping or using. so that hav-
ing 1t there merely for temporary use
in cleaning an auto or vulcaniziog
the tires does not void the policy
Home Insurance Company of New
York v. Bridges. 1S9 S. W. (Ky.) 6.
In a pedestrians action for injuries
when struck by an automobile at a
street crossing. whether she was war
ranted, after seeing the automobile
short distance away and knowing that
II would cross her line of travel, in
not further watching its approach. is
a question for the jury.-Bellinger "
Hughes, 160 p. (Cal) S3S.
Whether an automobile driver. in
driving his car around the end of
standing street car, was negligent, and
liable for damages when he struck a
pedestrian. depends on the degree of
care required. which in turn is depen-
dent on the character of the machine
as to size, weight, speed. and noise,
and the condition of the streets-Bel-
linger v. Hughes, 160 P. (Cal) S3S.
In an action for damages caused by
a collision between defendants car
and plaintiffs auto truck, where the
only damage supported by evidence,
including loss of earnings for one
and one-half weeks at $75 per week,
totaled $4,000, damages awarded by
verdict for plaintiff for $3S7.O1 were
excessive.-Dodds v. Rhode Island
Company, 30 A. (R. - o.
Although the head OF a household
may buy a car for the general use of
the members of the family, he never
theless retains the right to deny its
use to any member whenever he sees
fit, and when he 50 does, he cannot
be held liable IL such member sur
reptitiously takes the car and negli-
another.DJensen v. Fischer, 159 N. w.
(Minn.) s27.
An automobile is not an inherently
dangerous machine to which the
rules of law applicable to dangerous
instrumentalities apply, and a manu-
facturer or vendor of an automobile
is not liable to third parties who have
no contractural relations with him
for negligence in the construction,
manufacture or sale OF such machine.
Ford Motor Company v. Livesay,,
leo P. (Okla-) 901.
In a PEDESTRIANS action for injuries
when struck by an automobile at a
street crossing, an instruction that IL
the automobile driver. unable to see
a street crossing which he ap-
proaches because OF a passing street
car, instead OF stopping his machine,
changes direction to pass around the
car. and in SO doing Injuries a pedes-
trian, he is guilty OF gross negligence
and liable for the damage proxi-
mately caused thereby, is erroneous
as pretermitting contributory negli-
gence.-Bellinger V. Hughes, 160 p.
(CaL) s3s.
Where a chauffeur disobeyed his
masters instructions in leaving cir
Gus show grounds, although the mas
ter had enjoined him not to leave the
grounds while the masters wife and
children were attending the circus,
and an accident occurred while the
chauffeur was apparently returning
to the grounds, the chauffeur was not,
at the time of the injury to the
plaintiff, acting within the scope of
his employment. on the ground that
when the accident occurred he was
at least resuming the service OF the
master.-Hill v. Stats. 1s9 S. w.
(Texas) SIS.
The driver OF an automobile who.