The Washington times., 1920-08-28
LEGAL POINTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE OWNER
imperative Duty Of Motorlst to
Protect Children empha-
sized by Court.
NJ Our Legal Correspondent

A recent decision OF the supreme
; court Of Missouri points out anew
the mutually OF the rights of pedes-
trians and motorists In the use OF
the public Highways, with special
emphasis on the care required OF mo-
torists TO avoid injurins the young
and 1nf1rm-
In this case the evidences showed
that Q child two years OF age got
away from an adult who was accom-
panyinx II. and was struck by an au-
tomobile while II was toddling across
the street The motorist was pro-
eeding slow enough to atop within
hftsen feet, and he testified that he
was looking straight ahead at the
time OF the accident. II was appar-
emit that u he had also kept an eye
on the space between the car and
tn, curb he would have seen the child
in time to avoid the accident. HIS
failure to DO this was declared by the
court to be such negligence as 70
render him responsible for the chiids
death.
The court remarks that -the duty 10
watch 10 an instinct OF the normal
mind. While the operator has risht
10 assume that persons whom he sees
In his path will do their part, that
right ceases when II Is developed that
Il 10 a child too young 10 understand
the danger"
On behalf Of the motorist 1t was
argued in this case that he was not
legally bound to anticipate the pos
sibls presence of an infant In the
Travelled portion Of the road, and thst
therefore II could not be negligence
to fail to be on guard against inJur'
ing one who was Unexpectedly In the
road. Answering this argument the
court said:
"If the duty rested upon anyone TO
keep the child out or the street II
was q duty owing to the child and
rot TO the motorist He had no right
TO demand that II be kept out Of his
way any more than he had the right
to demand that the aged or inArrp or
feeble in mind and body be Kept
out Of his way. The law as well as
humanity imposed upon him the duty
to look out for all"
The preceding. case further en-
phasizes the rule that the negligence
of a parent or guardian in permitting
a child to get into danger VIII not
absolve the motorisc from liability
for injuring it IL the accident could
have been prevented by the exercise
of q proper degree of care in the
management of the car and the OBJ
servation of attendant conditions OF
travel.
1t Is pointed out in a recent case
that a person who Is injured IN an
automobile accident will not be de-
MED damages against the motorlst
because he admitted. shortly after the
accident, that the mishap was un-
avoidable. The question OF liability
is to be determined by a considera-
tion of all Of the facts in the light
of the legal rules governing the case.
II the facts create a case OF liability
in themselves, the admission OF the
injured person is TO be regarded
merely as a misinterpretation of the
law and as such Is entirely i'm
material in the decision of the case.
Recent decisions in Texas and else
where lay stress on the constitutional
safeguards against improvident con-
yictions in prosecutions for auto
mobile stealing and related crimes.
In one case the court holds that
conviction for setting fire to cars is
not sustainable where the principal
evidence to connect the defendant
with the crime is the testimony of
police officers to the effect that they
traced automobile tracks from the
place of the fire to the accused's
garage, and found that the tires of
the accused's car corresponded to the
pecuIiarities of the tracks. In this
case it appeared that there were oc-
casional gaps in the tracks that were
not accounted for, and that it could
not be shown with certainty whether
the tracks were made by car which
approached or was driven away from
the location of the fire.
In another case the conviction Of
man for stealing car was based
principally upon his own confession,
made to police officers. 1t was shown
that the constitutional requirement
that the accused be advised that state
ments made by him would be used
against him had not been complied