The Washington times., 1920-10-16
LEGAL POINTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE OWNER
Current Decisions Lay Blame
for Automobile Accidents to
Careless Driving.
ny Our Legal Correspondent.

In a New Jersey case involving a
suit by a pedestrian for injuries Que
TO the alleged negligence OF a motor
list the evidence showed that the pc
destrian stepped from the sidewalk TO
the roadway after seeing an approach
ing car about 500 feet away and that
she did not again look In the direction
OF the car as she continued across the
street. She was struck by the auto
mobile, and her failure to continue 10
watch out for the car and to keep out
OF It's way was relied upon by the mo-
torist as a defense to her suit. In de-
Gliding that the motorists defense was
not sound, the court said:
She (the pedestrian who was In
jured) saw the automobile approach
ing; she perceived that IL was 500 feet
away as she stepped on the westerly
curb; she knew that the roadway Was
a very narrow one; she had a right to
assume that her passage across the
street would be observed by the driver
OF the defendants car; she knew that
he could utilize the full width OF the
street TO avoid running her down, for
the evidence showed that there was
no obstruction in the street to pre-
vent such free use OF IL by him. We
do not think 1t can be said as a mat
ter OF law that a reasonably prudent
person exercising due care for her
own safety would not have acted as
she did in the situation which was
presented to her mind; in other words,
that the existence of negligence on
her part was a matter for the jury,
and not for the court, to settle, in
view OF all the facts and presump-
tions which have been indicated"
L..
phasizes the legal rule that mo
torist must take reasonable precau-
tions to avoid accident before enter
ing upon railroad tracks at a public
crossing. Irrespective OF the legal duty
OF passing trains to give warning of
their approach. In this case, involv-
ing a collision between an automobile
and a steam engine. the driver OF the
car insisted that she had carefully
looked up and down the track before
attempting to cross. There was evil
dence that the engine was proceeding
at a high speed and that II had failed
to give the required warnings as 1t
approached the crossing. But con-
sideration of the surroundings OF the
crossingg convinced the court that If
the motorist had in fact taken the
precaution to look up the tracks,
there was no reason why she should
not have seen the approaching train.
For this reason the court decided
that the motorist was not entitled to
damages from the railroad company.
notwithstanding its negligence.
In many States a city is not liable
for accidents due to its negligence
except in cases where the facts
constitute a defect in the highway
on which the accident occurred. This
! is the rule in Connecticut. In case
Just decided in this State the evi
dence showed that an automobile was
damaged at night by coming in con
tact with traffic post-usually
termed a silent policeman"-tha'
had fallen across the road. II was
proved that notice of this condition
had been given to the police authori-
| ties before the accident and that
there had been ample time after the
receipt of such notice to remove the
post. On this state of facts the
court held that there was a defect
in the highway" in a legal sense and
that, therefore. the motorist was en-
titled to be paid the amount of his
damage.
1t may be pointed out in this con-
nection that in all States the liability
of a city for accidents due to condi-
tions in the streets is predicated upon
notice of the defective conditions
That is to say, the city cannot be
held responsible for such accidents
unless 1t is proved that the city was
aware in fact of the condition of the
particular street, or else that the
| defects existed for so long a time
that it is a reasonable inference that
the city should have known OF them.
In another recent Connecticut case
| involving a claim for the death of a
pedestrian who had been struck by
an automobile. the principal ques-
tion in the case was the claim of the
mot orist that the damages awarded
were excessive and that the jury had
been influenced to this result by
the act of the plaintiffs attorney IN
bringing out that the motorist was
insured against loss, so that the
verdict would be paid by an insur-
ance company. Lawyers versed In