The Washington times., 1917-05-19
COURT NTERPRETS
LAWS FOR DRIVERS
Rights Of Walkers on Cross
ings Are Upheld.
MACHINE SHOULD EASE UP
Authorities in Many States Agree
on Main Principle.

In q prosecution for violation OF
the motor vehicle law in failing to
stop and give name and residence, ETC.
plea Of former jeopardy, alleging con
viction OF the violation OF a city ordi
nance for reckless driving, was not
well pleaded, since the offenses were
not the same either in law or fact
Woods v. State. 20 So. (Ala.) 12o.
II q pedestrian had already entered
upon q crossing as an automobile
driver approached. or IL she was trav.
cling in that direction and SO near
that the driver could not take the
crossing before her without danger.
It was his duty to stop or so reduce
his speed as to AFFORD her safe
passage.-Switzer v. Baker. 160 N. w.
Qowa) 372.
In action for value Of horse killed
by collision with defendants auto
mobile. that plaintiffs driver swuns
to the left going around a corner
after seeing defendants car was not
contributory negligence a. q matter
of law: II not appearing that he did
not make the turn in an effort to
avoid the collision.-Eberie brewing
Company v. Briscoe Motor Compau:-,
100 N. W. (Mich.) 40.
In an action for Injuries to q woman
by an automobile, an instruction that,
having cleared the line of approach
Of the automobile she had the hight
to turn around and go back across
the street. was improper. though II
could be construed in harmony with
the law, since the jury would neess-
sarily acquire therefrom an exagger-
rated conception of the drivers Ir.y
20 anffrHnofa No.
Switzer v. Baker. 100 n. w. Uowa)
3I2.
Where employs Of an automobile
company borrowed from q company
whose automobiles he was employed
to inspect, an automobile to drive on
Sunday, the employer was not liable
for collision while he was drivinE II
Saturday afternoon. in taking q per-
son representing himself to be a
salesman OF the automobile company
to one OF its plants, which service
the employee had volunteered as an ae-
commodation.-Eberl Brewing Com
pany v. Briscoe Motor Company, $50
N. w. (Mich.) 40.
Gen. Acts 1911, D. 645. 2S. provid-
ing that any person operating a mo-
tor vehicle. knowing that injury has
been caused to person or property by
num- WIN lC1Nco AAc PAaCc VI
stopping and giving his
name, residence. and operators ~
cense number TO the injured party or
some other person. shall be guilty OF
a misdemeanor. Is not violative of
the constitutional guaranty against
characterization in the bill OF
rights, Const. . 6.-Woods v. State, T6
So. (Ala.) 100.
Where two officers of q corporation
by turns drove an automobile belong
ing to the corporation. which was
kept in q building belonging to the
elder of such officers. he could not
be charged with liability for injuries
to q pedestrian by the car, while be-
ing driven by the other officer. be-
tween the place OF business and .he
storage building on the theory that
the other officer was his agent, and
that he was the bailee of the car
from the corporation.-Switze v.
Baker. $50 N W. Qowa) 3T2.
A city ordinance. providing that
have the right of way at
and persons in control
Of motor vehicles on approaching in
shall sound signals and
move at no greater speed than IL rea-
sonably safe and proper, merely en-
acts the common law rule that pedes-
TRANS and drivers OF vehicles have
an equal right to use the public
streets and each must exercise IL with
regard for the convenience |