Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1917-12-30
COURT DECISIONS ON AUTOS

Degree of Care Required at Railroad
Crossinss-The degree OF care which
a traveller approaching railroad
crossing is required to exercise is ordi-
nary care.-92 S. j.. (VaD g13.
] Caution In Vicinity OF oos--Spe-
cial caution on the part of drivers of
vehicles Is required for the protection
of children congregating i'm the vicinity
OF a schoolhouse.-l01 A (PaD ~.
Railroad Track Crossing Highway
] A railroad track across a highway is
I itself a proclamation of danger and
travellers approaching such crossing on
the highway must exercise proper pre-
cautions for their own safety.-92 $.
I Il. (Va1 905.
Guest In Car Must Exercise Care
/ While the negligence of the driver of
an automobile cannot be imputed to a
! guest therein the guest must exercise
such care for his own safety as a
reasonably prudent person would un-
der like circumstances.-l65 T.. core. ;
| zoos.
What Constitutes Ordinary Care
The Ordinary care" required of one
who attempts a railway crossing is
such care and caution as an ordinarily
pruden; and reasonable person would
exercise under the same circumstances
condition and surroundings.-92 $. r..
(Na.) 9l3.
Failure TO Take Precautions at
Crossng-E Even tho the railroad com
pany was guilty OF negligence, a traV-
eler injured at a crossing cannot re-
cover II his own neglect to take proper
precautions for his own safety proXi-
mately contributed to his injury.-92
$. T.. (Na.) sos.
Test of Liability OF One Injuring
Child-ln action for personal injury
TO child struck by an automobile
while In a highway between crossings,
the test OF defendants liability was
whether in the exercise OF due care he
should have seen the child in time to
have avoided injury.-10l A. (Pe-J II.
Injury Due Solely to Negligence OF
Driver-If plaintiffs injury was due
solely to the negligence Of the automo-
bile driver with whom she was riding
as a guest, and not to the manner in
which defendant, who laid gas pipes
along the highway, had refilled tho
trenches. she could not recover.-l65
L. (Ore.) 1905.
Negligence OF Passengers Barring
Recovery-Where a husband and wife
hired an automobile driven by tho
owners chauffeur and made no effort
to have the chauffeur drive at
proper speed and on the right side OF
the street, they would be guilty Of
contributory negligence, barring their
recovery for injuries from a collision.
--101 A. (Pa.) 75.
Abandoned Crossing-In an action
against railroad for injuries at
crossing where the rails were rusty
and level with the highway. vegeta-
ton was growing. and there was no
signal board. as required by statute.
whether the negligence Of the road
was the proximate cause of the injury
was to be determined from all the
facts and circumBtances.-9S 3. Z.
(Va.) 905.
Failure to Protest over Careless
Driving-when the dangers arising
from tho negligent operation Of a
hired automobile In which one ~ rid
ing as an invited guest are manifest
to a passenger having an adequate op-
portunity to control the situation, and
he permits himself without protest to
bo driven to his injury. he is fixed
with his own negligence which bars q
recovery.-ioi A. (Pa.) rs.