The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-10-03
LEGALPOINTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE OWNER
Explosion of Dynamite in Au-
tOmObile Raises Interesting
Question Of Law.
BIZ Our Legal Correspondent.


In recent decision of the New York
Coourt OF Appeals it Is shown that boy
was injured by an explosion of dyna-
mite which WAS being. carried in mu-
nicipa automobile. The dynamite was
about to be used in an ATTEMPT to re-
cover a body believed to be lying in a
nearby stream. A number OF people
were gathered around the ear to watch
the proceedings when the explosion oc-
Cured. The city had failed to comply
with the legal safeguards governing the
transfer of explosives through the
streets, and this was the ground upon
which claim was filed by the boy
one of the injured spectators. The cour,
decided that the city was responsible In
damages for the consequences of the ex-
plosion.
In deciding this case the court calls
attention to the general rules OF law
governing the right of loitererS and spec
tators In the public streets to damages
from the city for injuries received
through automobile accidents thereon. II
cites the case of the improper use OF
street for an automobile race. In sucn
q case spectators who congregate for the
purpose of witnessing the race have no
claim against the city II they are In
jured by one of the machines, while
passerby at the time would have claim
II he were injured. The distinction is
made between people who knowingly
congregate In pubic place through de-
sign and those who loiter there when
they happen to be passing rhe FORMER
must take the risk incident to the pur-
pose of their visit the latter are entitled
to damages for the unforeseen conse-
Quences OF their curiosity, provided they
are not guilty of contributory negligence
when they discover the dangers of their
situation.
In Pennsylvania this distinction is not
drawn. Neither class Of persons is per-
mitted to claim damages there from a
city under the conditions stated.
An accident resulting from the back
ing of a truck at a street intersection
presumably for the purpose OF enabling
the truck to proceed down the through
street without making a complete turn
caused split in the New York Court
of Appeals recently. The injured pedes-
TRAN claimed that as he was about to
cross the through street at the ntersec-
ton he looked up and down before STEP
ping from the curb and saw no vehicles
and that he was struck by the rear OF
the truck when he got ten feet from the
curb In the lower. corrt the truck
driver was held blameless on the
ground that If the pedestrian had really
looked he necessarily would have seen
the truck approaching. A majority OF
the Judges in the higher court reversed
this ruling on the ground that the In
jured mans claim was wholly credible
and should have been submitted to the
Jury. Two Judges dissented. THE
plaintiffs story" they said that he
looked before attempting TO cross and
did not see the automobile which struck
sim is incredible as matter OF law. II
he had looked he must have seen the
automobile, and If he did not look then
he was guilty of contributory negli-
gence." ,E~- g
In a recent Alabama case an auto
mobile seized by the Sheriff for unlaw
full use in the transportation OF liquor
had been purchased by the owner on
the conditional sale plan. After the
seizure but before the final act of con-
demnation Under the law friend Of the
owner paid UP the mortgage on the car
and then filed a claim to the car He
had had no connection with the i'm
proper use Of the car His claim to the
car was denied. The car was then sold
and the proceeds came before the court
for distribution. The owners friend