Norwich bulletin., 1920-11-19

ercise reasonable care upon the high s ways is heavier than ever now because of the increased danger of travelling, says Justice George w. Wheeler of the su- } preme court, in his opinion in the ap- peal of the case of Mrs. Alice Russell of Providence against Frederick D. Nerga- son of Norwich Town he has a right to rely upon certain protection that the law gives him in obliging the operator of an automobile to run his car with the knowledge that pedestrians are liable to be on the highway. The opinion reverses Judge Kellogg, who set aside the verdict of sS.0OO that 1 the jury gave to Mrs Russell. and directs that judgment for the jury verdict be en- 1 tered for the plaintiff. The suit was over an automobile accident that happen l ed at Norwich Town.
 i Judge Wheeler's opinion makes inter- esting reading for pedestrians and auto- imobilists alike as it touches upon their respective rights in the road.
 Judge wheerer's Opinion.
 The opinion follows:
 The jury might reasonably have found | from the evidence offered by the plain ] tiff that she stepped from the stoop in | | front of Earnings store to the Norwich | road, a highway in Norwich. in order | to go straight across this highway to | the only sidewalk upon it and located | oAl tlic NOHI IItlCO1 alHdl as SUe ulu SD she looked for conveyances approaching | from the north and seeing none con II tinued on directly at a speed of about
 three miles on hour, covering the IS feet q to the double trolley tracks, the 15
 feet across them and 20 feet over the
 surfaced part of this highway and com
 ing to within three feet of the sidewalk
 when she was struck by defendants au
 tomobie approaching from the north and travelling at speed of 20 to 9 miles
 an hour and that the speed of the car did
 not slacken nor it's bell sound before the 1 accident.
 It did not appear from the evidence
 offered by the plaintiff that she looked to , the north except when she stepped upon the highway from the store stoop.
 The trial court held that the plaintiff should have looked before entering up
 on the surfaced part of the highway, and
 based its conclusions upon it's findings
 that no witness other than the plaintiff : had testified upon this subject The court was right in it's legal con- = cuson as to the plaintiffs duty inas- : much as she must be assumed to have 6 known the danger from automobiles pass n ing over this surfaced part of the high d way and the liability of one or more Il reaching the part of the highway she t. was crossing before she got on the side a walk, although none were in sight when r. she looked on leaving the stoop, and her line of vision extended to the north s for 250 feet
 S, But the court was wrong in it's recol- n lection of the evidence Both the defend- n ant and his wife apd Dr. Kruck testified
 that when the plaintiff was upon the sec c ond trolley track she stopped and looked l. to the north at the approaching car Find
 ing the reason for the courts decision CT
 roneous will not vtiuate it's decision in
 cA&t 1. I1 and legal grounds the same result must " follow.
 If the plaintiffs evidence be considered . apart from that of other witnesses her i i own conduct in failing from about the 70 time she left the stoop to look for ap. .. preaching conveyances upon this mucf s travellSd highway must be a held to be .,t .L conduct exhibiting a want of reasonable ; care and to have materially contributed : to her injuries, and upon the case o ,- the plaintiff as pleaded and tried she ii could not recover.
 CT The plaintiff was in the zone of dange1
 during all of the time she was crossing Ls the surfaced part of the highway anC y the jury may have found upon her testi mony and that of Johnson that she walk v ed across this surfaced way withou
 stopping or looking to the north, and tha
 the defendant saw her from the tim. E. she left the store stoop and saw that sh, s. was proceeding in apparent unconscious H. ness of his approach, and that from t. the time he saw her in this place O h. danger he neither sounded his horn no g gave her warning of his approach. bu h. continued on at a speed of upwards O of 20 miles an hour until about the time hi oh car struck her, and that after he say nd her in this position of danger. he coul UT have checked or stopped his car or turn ist ed it to the east in time to have avoide re the accident.
 IT, It follows. as matter of law, that R. the jury found these facts proven, tn H. defendants own negligence was the las of proximate cause of the accident and nc to that of the plaintiff in failing to do he
 duty by looking to the north when sh
 was entering upon the travelled way
 The situation thus found would hay os- justified a verdict for the plaintiff upo ng the last clear chance doctrine. Ths aln feature of the case was not presented -se the pleadings upon the trial and W iai may not sustain a verdict upon an i m sue present in the evidence but not maC vas an issue in the case
 But the jury was not confined to u dl- evidence offered by the plaintiff for the
 finding of the facts. The truth does n
 often lie in closely contested cases a together upon one side. It is often four
 partly in the evidence of the plaintiff al ITS. partly in that of the defendant.
 If the evidence viewed as a whole pr er- sents any reasonable cause of acti
 within the law and within the issues t ,el, verdict of the jury should not be s rc aside.
 What the Jury Might Have Found. tier ahIv bavo fornd +bst-ff cha 1oolrad m, for leaving tha stora e+oon and +bo+ sba al L. looked as she entered or was about to 6
 ter the surfaced part of the highway, nd the defendant and his wife and I her Kruck say, and that the defendants c ned was then approaching at the rate
 from 20 to 25 miles an hour as Johns or, and Casey testify.
 Tiss The jury might also have reasonal ,ac- found that the plaintiff while crossi o+ the surfaced way was walking at tS rate of three miles an hour and that fir, --Ie the moment she looked. as the defenda
 t says, until she was struck she had trs .tr elled 20 feet.
 ord +hat ti,;e a,tnn,obiis va. traI,a,;r',r to " oh least eight times as fast as the plain when she looked as she entered or W iec about to enter upon the surfaced Wi
 Had the jury so found the question
 our decision is this:
 are As a matter of law was it neglig
 for the plaintiff to continue on across
 23 foot surfaced highway walking at . rate of about three miles an hour wi
 an automobile was approaching from G north and would reach the line of II highway which she was passing oy II when she was within three feet / n sidewalk? 160 feet is two-thirds of Il average city block.
 May not this pedestrian have nistal