The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1917-10-21

That a passenger In AN automobile
injured In collision with n train at a
railroad crossing was not the driver OF
the car did not relieve him from all
care-Blanchard v. Maine Central X.
CO.. 100 A. (MeJ 6ds.
Violation of speed ordinance by the
driver Of an automobile IL negligence
per Sc, and Il Is not rendered any the
less 10 because the police OF IA city re-
olive not TO enforce the ordinance
Riser v, Smith. i62 ". w. tMinnJ $50.
IL IN the duty Of an automobile driver
on approaching a street railway cross
ing To give way To "A street ear about
To pass at the same time, II necessary In
order 10 avoid a collision.--Arnold v.
San Francisco. Oakland Terminal Rys,
i64 p. ,Cal) 79S.
II a person does not have ordinary
skin in driving an automobile, II IL
lack OF ordinary care to attempt To do
~, and such conduct is contributory
negiigenc barring recovery for injuries.
Arnold V. san Francisco oakland Ter
rninal Rys.. l6I ,Call 79s
Where an automobile drove along "a
city street at eight To ten miles an hone,
and, without sounding warning To
plaintiff. man of seventy, delivering
pies from n pie wagon. struck and In
iured him. the facts justified the infer
ence of the automobil drivers negli'
gence.-Heckman Y. Hickman, 100 a.
~. - 695.
Where deceased driving an outomo.
bile, saw the street car while he was
forty feet from the track and could have
turned In two directions or stopped and
avoided danger, his driving the car di'
rectly against the street car was such
contributory negligence as to gar re-
covery.-Arnold v. san Francisco-Oak'
land Terminal Rya l6I Il. tCalJ 79S.
In an action for injuries to the driver
Of a pie wagon when struck by an auto
mobile in the street as he left his wag'
on to deliver pics. whether the defend
ant, under the circumstances, by the
exercise of reasonable care could have
avoided running into plaintifi. man OF
"A
trial judge.-Heckman V. Hickman, 100
A. IN. j. 695.
Where plaintiff was a passenger on
the rear of the motorcycle, which the
driver rode nthe wrong side of the
highway at high speed without pro-
test from plaintiff. and In turning out
for a team they were injured. plaintiff
was contributorily negligent and could
not recover from the owner of the auto
mobile which they then struck.-Russell
y. Watkins, l64 l.. lUtah sG7.
In action for injuries in collision on
highway between motorcycle and auto
mobile, automobile driver was not liable
for negligence, If any, in permitting
brakes to become deficient where. when
the danger was discovered, the collision
could not have been averted. regardlss
of tn character of the brakes, or even
mad he reversed the Russell v
watkins, 164 =. (UtalD SGT.
A driver Of a pie wagon who started
across the street with load of pies on
his arm for delivery. having previously
seen the automobile which struck him
about 100 feet away. was not guilty OF
contributory negligence, since he had
the right reasonably TO expect that the
driver, having himself in sight. would
have his car under control and aboid
the accident.-Heckman Y. Hickman
100 A. IN. j. 500.
Plaintiffs intestate. a passenger in an
automobile driven by another, approach
ed n railroad crossing where the view
was obstructed nj n speed about equal
to that of a person walking. He was
engaged In conversation with another
passenger, and failed TO look and listen
for the approach of train as he ap
preached the track. Had he looked
when he reached a point within sever
or eight feet of the track, he must have
seen an approaching train, and had ht
listened he must have heard its bell
which was ringing, an dthe rumbline