New Britain herald., 1927-11-05
PEDESTRIANS RIGHTS TO USE, OF STREETS

States has made a decision of high importance to motorists and pedes- trians, and the latter through the decision have won the greatest vic tory since automobiles were invent ed.
 The highest court In the land has placed the rights of pedestrians as superior to those of motorists, say ing that jay-walkingi with reason- able care. is constitutional, legal and a prerogative not to be denied. The court ruled that man struck by an automobile while crossing the street at a cross -walk-is entitled to collect damages.
 The Supreme Courts decision took up certain fundamental rights which cannot be overlooked In this land of the free-and one of these rights is that the highways are pub lic property, and that driving a car Is merely a privilege and not right Listen to the courts words:
 The streets belong to the public; pedestrians have the right to walk on any part of the street or roadway and that right cannot be taken away. Driving car is a privilege that may be revoked at any time; therefore, 1t becomes incumbent upon the driver of an automobile to see to it that he does not strike the pedestrian"
 This Is the most serious blow yet struck against motorists who think they own the streets, when in reality they are only licensed to use them by the public which owns them. Li- censng drivers does not mean that the license abrogates the rights of the public which permits the use of the streets through their duly con- stituted authorities.
 Perhaps it is interesting to 20 into the nature of the case which brought about the Supreme Courts slashing declaration of pedestrian rights. A man had been injured by an express company truck while he was crossing street between corners. He ex- ercised due care but the truck driv. CT appears to have "blown on the horn, stepped on the gas and went ahead" thinking, as usual that the pedestrian had no rights at all. The man sued for $15,0o0 and got a yer dict for the whole amount. The ex- press company appealed to the U. s. Supreme court on the score that the pedestrian should have used the cross walk, and If he used any other part of the street he did so at his own risk. The Supreme Court, how ever, interpreted the fundamental law as noted and the company pays the s15,0o0 and costs. As a result Of the decision, it Is stated, the express company had tablets put near the seats of all it's drivers, with these words: Safety first Pedestrians have the right of way. In case of doubt-stop. Take no chances on in- turing anyone"
 In Connecticut the rights of pedes- trians have been repeatedly confirm ed by the higher courts. The police in most cities assume the right to restrain a person from crossing the street at any point if danger is in- volved, and they exercise the police power 10 regulate pedestrians and l one Of the recent cases the Hartford superior court ruled that q pedes- trtan had the right to cross the street but was compelled to use reasonable care. Such a decision is in conformity with the |. s. Su- Ureme court decision.
 No pedestrian in his senses. of course, will take such court decisions 10 mean that he has the right 10 take deliberate chances of injury; but 1t does mean that the motorists have no more rights between cross ings than elsewhere, and that pedestrians have superior rights at all pOints