The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1920-11-13

-
1t was SO decided In a case recently
passed upon In New Jersey. In this
case It was shown that the chauffeur
had finished his days work. and in
stead or taking the car 10 his en-
ployer's garage went on some per-
sonal errands. lie stopped at res
taurant for some food, and while he
was in there the ear was stolen. His
employer was required to make good
the loss TO the owner.
In another New Jersey case. there
vas a collision at q railroad crossing
between a train and an automobile.
The motorist and his companions tcs-
tined positively that they. did not
hear the required warnings as the
train approached the crossing. and
thus were lurcd into false Sense Of
security. Several employees Of the
railroad working on the tracks, con-
firmed the engineers claim that the
whistle blew and the bell rang as re.
CURED by law. The sole question in
the case was whether there was any
evidence OF the railroads default 10
be submitted TO the jury. II was de-
cided that in the face OF the positive
testimony above referred 70, tho mega
tive testimony OF the motorist and
his companions could not be consid-
cred at all. and that the case should
not so to the jury. The court i'm
plies that II the motorist had been
able to testify afrirmatively that he
listened for the warning, before at
tempting TO cross and had not heard
It, this would have created a question
of veracity. emitting him to presen;
tho issue to jury. But the mere as
IN I'm ha hnar tho
warning can have no effect upon the
positive assertions of witnesses who
declare that they did hear ii.
4 Utah case deals with the extra
precautions required OF a motorist TO
avoid injurinS children. Conduct
which under ordinary circumstG noes
would absolyr motorist from re-
sponsibility for an accident may Gre
ate such responsibility where a child
ia concerned. In this case a child un-
der five years ~ age was crossing a
street. \ mctorist approaching the
crossing blew his horn and the chile
both saw the car and heard the warn
ing The motorist was driving at
moderate pace. and assumed that the
child would heed his warning and get
out OF tho way. But tho child got
into the path or the car. and before
tn" driver could change his course.
the child was struck. On this state
Of facts tho court held the motorist
responsible for the child's injuries.
In effect. the court ruled that when a
moiori.t sees child about TO get in
his path. he must bring his car abso- ,
lutelv within his control until tn,
child has passed the danger zone, /
even though this entails stopping the
car to guard against the child's folly |
or ;mmaturity OF understanding OF
the danger oil it's situation.
In recent Georgia case two auto ,
travelling in the same direc- |
ion. were going at about sixty miles
yer hour, which was a distinct viola
ion of the speed lsws. As the cars
.urned corner one struck the other, |
causing the death of the driver OF the
after car The estate OF the dece- |
lent sued the driver of the other car !
alleging that the accident was due 10
ais negligence in making the turn. |,
lis defense was shat as both parties |
we're guilty of violating the speed !
avs at the time of the accident, |
neither could DO liable for injuring !
he other. The court refused to apply |
his rule. 1t held that the liability !
or violation of the speed laws and !
he question whether the accident was
lue solely to the defendants neSlt-
yencc were distinct questions, and |
hat the ono had no bearing on the !
,ther. II the defendant was shown |
o be negligent, and this negligence |
vas alone responsible for the acct
lent. the decedcnt's violation of the |
peed laws was immaterial.
Motor car receipts OF all kinds Tor |