The Mena weekly star., 1921-07-14
HIGHWAY RULES
 HAVE LEGAL BASE
.nden Judge% Shows That Laws of fhb Highway Require Every User of Road to Exercise Ordinary
 Care and Prudence.

zM of the hlgnWay, ana tae care one must exercise in the use of the same, V owners of automobiles, horse Irawn vehicles, and pedestrians, and |of their information as well as the general public I will give few of the 1ecisions of the Supreme Court of Ar <ansas, as well as other states of the znion, on the general laws that govern |ke highway in all the states.
 The driver of an automobile, or stAer person using the highway, must 5ss ordinary care to avoid the infiic- ion of damages or injury to the per- 1on or property of another. The pub in highway must be so used as to not 5<tzrfere with the rights of others to 4wfully use the highway. Ross vs. sErickland, 130 Ark, 406; 134 Id 325; z37 Id 231; 143 Id 615; l43 Id GIT, |47 s. w. 7O9.
 Persons using the public highway njIst exercise care for their own pro- |ction, and cannot recover damages |or an injury to which their own neg zxence contributed. Id.
 Under Arkansas legislative acts, El}1i, page 102, Sec. r., it is provided .fIat when it shall appear that any 10rse ridden or driven upon any high %4y as about to become frightened by |he approach of any motor-driven ye- {;fIe it shall be the duty of the driver < such vehicle to cause it to come to z It'll stop until such horse shall have nzssed, and if necessary to assist in accident, the duty of the &Itomobile driver is not limited by xi1at he actually sees, but is governed 5v what he would see if in the exer- .ISe of ordinary care, he would see |hAt the horse is frightened or about
 be frightened. Id.
 Under Acts of 1911, page 102, Sec. |2. the failure of an automobile driver |4 Stop when he sees, or in the exer- nc of due care would see that horses 1fe frightened, or about to become 'riRhtened, by his automobile, is neg irence rendering him liable for any |njury of which it is the proximatc s4use, and he can not determine for dimself whether it is sster to pro >eed than to stop. Ross vs. Strick- md, 190 Ark, 408; l43, Id. 6l5, GIT. |97 s. w. 709.
 All nave Equdl iiBhl.
 All persons have an equal right to 18e the public streets and highways |or travel by proper means, and with iue regard to the corresponding lights, traveller using the highway .or an automobile having no higher r greater right than the driver of a nnle attached to a buggy or a beggar ,n his crutches. Butler vs. Cabe, 116 krk., 26; 122 Id. 3l; l5f Id. 324; |. R. As, 1915, c.
 Ordinary care may require Q great zf exercise of care by automobilists ln country roads, where horses and Hules are liable to be frightened of >cher users of the highway, Id.
 In action for injuries in a runaway ,aused by an automobilist frighten- ne horses, evidence held sufficient to H2rrant finding that the defendant '4iled to exercise proper care to lFoid frightening the team. Fleming s. Oats, 122 Ark, 28; Id. SPA; i43 Id. 5I6; 182 s. W. 509.
 4The driver of an automobile is neg iRent in proceeding along city street lf country highway when he is so Minded by the headlight of an ap- car that he cannot see ob- |ects ahead of him. Jacquith vs. Warden, AS, L. R. (N. s., p 287; l32 lac. 33; 73 Wash, 349.
 A greater degree of care is required 4 the driver of an automobile on the ldblic highway and especially. at Erect crossings, than is required.
 Approaching Crossings.
 -l.s. Itl r.. rut street crossings with his zachine under control, so he can stop t once to avoid a collision, 3S l.. t. A. |N. S.) 487; N. E. 5O1; 204 N. '. 92.
 The driver of an automobile is gull |Y of gross negligence in driving his |9f at high rate of speed across the of two streets and around |E&end of a street ear which obstructs @view of the crossing so that find
 pedestrian directly in the path
 <he car he cannot avoid colll-
 with him. Gregory vs. Slaughter.
 R. A. (N. S.) 1292, 99, s w. PAT,
 Xy. 345.
 7e is negligent in driving an au- W15ile into collision with team
 |5 approaching from the opposite
 <tion in a highway, altilo the
 <r fails to obey his signal to turn
 nd let him pass. Savoy vs. Nc
 48 l.. R. A. (N. S.) 972; S8,
 I11 Me. 234.
 Ie jury may find that it IS the
 of driver of an automobile to
 u*to permit a faster car to pass
 6I& for miles there would be no
 IT opportunity to pass while both
 are in motion and stopping for q
 minutes would permit him to do
 nder a statute requiring an over
 Lzlx car to pass to the left, and the EF6r of the forward car as soon as Acticable to turn to the right, so as fallow free passage on the left. Mark Y Hfitch, % l.. K. A. tN. S.) S3z; 3 NJ E. 3S0; 195 N. Y. 2S2.
 Pleasure Parties.
 All who join in an enterprise to ako ' pleasure drive in an automobile n highway are liable in case the ne Having control of the machine IS a1iIt4 of reckless driving. State vs. lo<f5, 34 l.. K. A. (N. S.) 295; 70 ,. z 4II; 88 s. c. 229.
 0u& may be guilty of malicious mis- ikiEZ Eho drives another's automobile 1Iou road so furiously as not to <of& For care whether he smashes It r nQk if while so doing It IS wrecNeo-
 Qu6 attempting to crank an auto n0<I|e in close proximity to horses EI<IDt paying any attention 10 ' V6E Eer or not they are frightened 4 resulting noise and continues |E [n the crank until the machine |<G notwithstanding the horses
 1tst fright as the result or
 < they run away. is responsible a <e resulting injury to them Iu-