Norwich bulletin., 1921-03-11

purpose of these delivering meat. As the horse was entering the driveway from the street. plaintiff looked north and then TOT the nrst time saw defendants auto mobile approaching in a southerly direc- tion on the easterly-Hs left hand-side or the street, and about 35 feet distant rom the plaintiff. He struck the horse with the reins to increase it's speed into the driveway, but just as the rear of tne wagon, was leaving the street and entering on the driveway defendants au- tomobile struck the right rear wheel of the wagon and threw the plaintiff out. breaking his arm as described in the complaint. Defendants automobile was a light, covered, Dodge truck, loaded With cans of milk. and driven by de- fendant's servant, with whom, on the one seat, two ladies were riding.
 The tracks made by the truck, as af- terwards examined, indicated that about two or three car lengths northerly of the driveway the brakes were applied so that the left rear wheel locked and slid along near the easterly edge of the road until near the entrance to the driveway, that then the car turned rather abruptly to the right, ran diagonally across the street to point west of the middle, then turned abruptly to the left, capsized onto its right side and came to a stop with it's front end near the easterly edge of the street about 35 feet southerly from the northerly side of the driveway De- fendant's driver admits that he had turned to .his left side of the street for the purpose of passing the vehicle driv- en by the plaintiff, that he did not blow his horn because he thought that when the plaintiff looked 10 his left before turn :ng he saw the car approaching, and claims that he uid not see the plaintiff give any signal
 The conclusion is reached that negli- gence on the part of the defendants ser want, especially in failing to give any warning signal of his approach and in failing to reduce his speed as the circun- stances required, proximately caused the injury to the plaintiff Not only, did plaintiff give the required signal of his intention to turn, but also the subseuuent course of his relatively moving horse-drawn vehicle would have given sufficient notice, while he was travelling entirely across the wide street, to enable vigilant and careful driver of defend ants automobile, if travelling at proper rate of speed. to avoid the collision which here occurred.
 the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall, under all circumstances, at his peril as- certain that no other vehicle is in sight
 approaching from his rear; on the con
 trary, it is the duty of the operator of the overtaking vehicle to signal his approach, so reduce his speed if necessary. that his
 vehicle may be under reasonable control
 and observe signals, if given, by the driver of the vehicle in front giving warn
 ing of an intention to change his course.
 When the driver ot a vehicle about to
 turn has duly sisnalled his intention and
 has ascertained that no vehicle is then SO engaged in passing him that not withstanding due care on the part of l the operator of the passing vehicle, he cannot with safety follow his contem- plated course, his a'trntion is necessarily md properly directed to guiding his ve- hicle and watching for the approach of traffic from the opposite direction from that in which he IS travelling. The greater opportunity for observation by the operator of vehicle approaching and seeking to pass another from the rear imposes on him a corresponding duty to utilize such opportunity. This is in. ] aicated by the provisions of our statute law. The rules of law regarding driving upon or across street railway tracks are nc. applicable. in their entirety, to the
 meeting and passing of vehicles.
 i In this case the defendants driver gave