The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1920-12-18
not in itself render him legally re-
sponsible for the accident.

spOhslplc Tor inc sctiuehh
Where an automobile IL sold on the
instslment plan under q mortgage
emitting the seller TO declare the
whole debt due, and TO retske the
car IL any installment 10 not met, ne
seller IL entitled to take possession
~ the car. after a default. without
resorting TO legal proceedings. In
recent Texas case, where several In
stallments had been in arrears. the
seller discovered the car standing ~
a street, where the buyer had left II
temporarily. lie took possession n II
without formality. The court held
that he was justified In doing 50.
In a recent Wisconsin case a motor
truck was struck by a street car. IL
appeared that the driver OF the trek
wishing 10 pass another vehicle. drov'
TO one side. going on the street RAJ
way tracks. He saw street ca
about 100 feet away, coming at
very rapid pace, but he thought
had time TO clear the track. He W.
'elayed by reason OF the fact that on.
Of his wheels slipped along the rsis'
edge OF the track. The street CO
struck the rear OF the truck befoi
I could be gotten of the tracks. Tn
,ccldent occurred on country roa
nd there was no sped law goNernin
the street car. Nevertheless, u
court decided that the facts Shove
oilpable negligence on the motormsi
in driving at an excessive rate
,peed, and in not having his car un
ter proper control when he discoN
,red the course taken by the truck
FOR this reason the car company VS.
-equired 10 pay for the damage dom
o the truck, and for the injuries y
the driver
The rule that neither party to ar
accident IL entitled to damages iron
tho other IL both were guilty OF neg
'igence is applied in a recent Mime
sota case. IN this case n motoris'
driving up a through street drov'
INTO a street intersection in utter in
difference to his obligation TO give
the right Of way to vehicles coming
from his right. Another motorist wa
approaching the intersection from
the right at an excessive rate OF
speed. This was held to debar mir
from any claim against the other
motorist Tor the resulting accident.
although he had the right OF way
IRE court said:
although on this occasion he had
the technical legal right OF way over
the crossing. he was under obltga
ton to exercise the right with the re-
gard to the safety OF others. and L
80 approach the crossing az to enable
i'm to avoid unexpected danger 10
those approaching from the intersect-
ing road. The rule OF the statute IS
we OF convenience. and was intend
cd to standardiZe rights and duties at
intersectinG highways; 1t does not
>bsolve one having the prior right
rom independent acts OF negligence
at such crossings"
In previous articles in this series
/ has been pointed out that the owner
# an automobile Is not legally re-
ponsible for an accident due to the
cgligence OF one to whom he lends
rs machine. This principle is ap.
piled by the supreme court OF North
'arolina to a case in which a motorist
loaned his car TO his butler. The
~ule is thus stated by the court:
"When a motor car Is used by one
20 whom it is loaned for his own pur-
,oses, no liability attaches to the
lender, unless. possibly, when the
ender knew that the borrower was
incompetent and that injury might
occur"
In a recent New York case It ap-
Years that New York motorist.
while touring in New Hampshire,
killed a pedestrian. He was sued in