Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-02-02
PROBLEMS
SOLVED BY courts
Four Recent Decisions Bear
on Rights of Auto Drivers
and Pedestrians.

Four court decisions of general inter-
est TO motorists in washington were
rendered during January, according to
the legal department of the American
Motorists Association.
Three decisions, in effect, support
the motorists contention that he is not
always in the wrong, while the fourth
emphasizes the previous position of
practically all courts that the rights of
a pedestrian at a crosswalk are para
mount, the A. M. A. resume points out.
OF the three decisions upholding the
rights of motorists, the most important,
1t is pointed out by the A. M. A., is
that of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
holding that while pedestrians may not
be guilty of negligence, as q matter of
law, in crossing a street between regu-
lar crossings, nevertheless a pedestrian
under such circumstances must be
charged with a high duty of care to
observe approaching traffic on the street.
The court followed an earlier Pennsyl-
vania decision holding that where one
attempts to cross the street, between
crossings, when vehicles are rapidly ap-
preaching close by, and injury results,
he must be charged with such careless
ness as to prevent a recovery. The
higher court reversed a lower courts
decision and instructed verdict for the
motorist.
Motorists Rights at Crossing.
The second decision, rendered by the
United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. is to the effect that motorist
has right to rely on the silence Of
warning gong at a railway crossing, and
cannot be charged with negligence II he
drives upon the track, after having
stopped, looked and listened. and is
then struck by a train. Failure of the
gong to ring was suf1icient assurance Of
safety to the motorist, the court de-
clared in reversing the decision.
The lower court, in finding for the
railway. had followed the so-called
Goodman (Ohio) case in the United
States Supreme Court, which in effect
places the entire burden Of safely cross
ing a railroad track on the motorist,
"even," said the Supreme Court, Ito
the extent, If necessary, II getting out
of his automobile and walking onto
the track to see If a train Is approach
ing, If he cannot see otherwise" The
Fifth Circuit Court however, declared
the facts different because in the Good
man case there was no gong or warning
OF any kind, while in the case before
1t, the court pointed out there was q
warning gong, but 1t was out of repair,
thus in effect shifting the responsibility,
under such circumstances, from the
motorist to the railroad.
Involves Woman Auto Driver.
The third decision involved a motor
list, his mother-in-law and an accident,
| the Wisconsin Supreme Court holding
that wife's entertainment Of a mother
in-law is not the business of a husband.
The husbands automobile was being
driven by the wife. who was showing
her mother the sights around Madi-
son, Wis. They smashed into the plain
tiff's automobile, whereupon the hus-
! band was sued, the court ruling. how
ever, that ut cannot be said that upon
| the trip the wife was prosecuting the
| husbands business" The Wisconsin
decision, it is pointed out by the A. nj
A., is In opposition to the District of
| Columbia so-called family-car doctrine
established in the Stephens case, hold
ing in effect that the head of q house.
furnishing his family with an autono-
bile, is liable for damage done by his
machine when driven by a member Of
his immediate family.
In the case Of Newman VS.. Protection
Motor Co., the Pennsylvania State SII-
preme Court holds that a pedestrian is
entitled to rely on traffic signals at
crossings and that the pedestrian ts
not bound to anticipate that motorists
are going to disregard traffic signals
and run him down. Care at street
crossings is the highest duty of motor
| lists" the court declared.