The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1918-07-07
The Motor Vehicle in Court

Use of Streets-Generally, in an
action for injuries from collision
with automobile on street ordi
nances claimed to be violated are
admissible in evidence under the
averment OF negligence. - III T.
(Cal) 457.
Amount of Damages-Verdict OF
$3.50 in favor OF pedestrian,
struck by an automobile, receiving
serious hurts and incapacitated for
the position to which he was about
to be promoted, was not excessive.
III p. (Ore.) 5S7.
Imputed Negligence-The negli-
gence OF a father in driving an au-
tomobile across a railroad track
without stopping looking or listen
ing cannot be imputed to his 10
year-old son who is riding with
hm.-l7l p. (kan.) 55l.
Excessive Damages A verdict
for $4,000 is not excessive where
plaintiff, a woman, was run over
by an automobile and her leg so
crushed as to make it permanently
from three to three and one-half
inches shorter-20l S. w. (Mo),
S54.
Pedestrians Duty to Look Back
"A pedestrian arriving at street
intersection which he desires and
attempts to cross is not necessarily
guilty. Of contributory negligence
because he does not look behind
him for approaching automobiles
III j. (kan.), 500.
Testimony as to Speed of Cara
passenger on the automobile which
struck plaintiff, who stated that he
aiterward rode in automobile and
observed the Speedometers was
competent to say what was the
speed of the automobile which hit
plaintiff.-l7l p. (OreD, 5S7.
Presumption as to Liability of
Owner-Wherc plaintiff proves that
the vehicle which caused his injury
belonged to defendant, he makes
prima facic case, since the jury may
inier that the driver was defendants
servant ami that the vehicle was
being used for defendants purposes.
III p. (Ore), 413.
Lights on Wagons at Night
That wagon was driven at night
without a lamp, in violation Of 4
Comp. st. 1910, p. 400, sec 92a, is
only circumstance to be consid-
cred on the question of contribu
tory negligence, and does not pre-
vent recovery where the wagon was
run down by an automobile.-l03
\. On. ~, 1876.
Contributory Negligence - That
occupants Of buggy on left side OF
street injured in collision with au-
tomobile which, in order to avoid
collision with vehicle on right side.
turned obliqucly to left side, could
have seen automobile and would
have stopped had they been looking,
does not constitute contributory
negligence as a matter OF law.-l1l .
p. CCalD, 436.
Obstructed View of Railway
Tracs s-LiabiIiay of a railway com
pany for injuries to those riding in
an automobile, sustained in COLI
sion with train at a highway cross
ing, may be founded on the com
pany's negligence in allowing weeds, /
grass and brush to grow on its right
ot-Way so as to obstruct the vision .
OF those riding in the automobile .
while they are approaching the rail
way track.-lIl 7. Kan.). 55l.
Taking Automobile Without Au-
thority of Owner - Pub. Acts 1909. /
No. 53. making it felony to take or
use an automobile or other motor We
hicle without authority but with
out intent OF stealing the same. does
not of itself give a right of action
10 pedestrian. struck by an auto
mobile operated in violation of such
statute; a pedestrian not belonging
TO the class for whose protection the