The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-02-16
gher Pouered More Economical Cars At Louver Prices
Coasting Problems
 And The Automobile
Instances Cited to Show That LDity for Accident Var
 iOus in Different Circumstances

recovery, unless such violation was a proximate cause of the injury. Harrington vs Cheponis 78 All. 652. The Pennsylvania court in 1922 said that "co'sting on public street. which is not put to extended public use, and not expressly prohibited by law" Is not of itself negligence. Idell vs Day 116 Att. 506.
 "The Massachusetts court has said that the illegal act of coasting is in itself the contributing and proximate cause of the accident. Thus in Boyd vs Ellison PAS Mass. is an absolute prohibition against the use of the streets for coasting. The act of coasting in itself consti- tutes the illegality of the coasters conduct and not the manner in which that person exercises the common right to travel upon the public ways. The ordinance in ques- tiop does not concern itself with the form of the coasting conveyance or with any adjunct to it. It Is plaiE that in the case at bar the immedi- ate and efficient cause of the acci- dent was illegal use made of the street. and that such use was not a condition of an otherwise lawful use Dul WdS st CduSc out which the accident could not have happened"
 Tn another Massachusetts case the injured child was coasting on Maple street where coasting was not prohibited but his course took him into Mill street on which such pro- hibition existed. The plaintiff had safely passed over the course twice but the third time he collided with an automobile which had turned into Maple street from Mill street. It should be noticed that the acci- dent happened at point where coasting was not prohibited. The court said the plaintiff could not re- cover. ''The plaintiff understood, said the court, "that the route was not divisible. It was not his purpose to use only Maple street and stop at the northerly side of Mill street. If indeed, such action would have been feasible.
 'The fled of operation as planned and used hy him cannot after the accident be divided to the defend- ants detriment into such sections. It is conceded, that if the collision had actually occurred on Mile street he cannot recover.
 "But the defendant, travelling or Mill street. had the right to assume that neither the plaintiff nor other boys would be coasting through Maple street over Mill street in vio- lation of law and when under the conditions described he entered Ma p!e street, he was not required in the exercise of ordinary care to ap- prehend, or anticipate, that Maple and Mill streets were being used in continuation as q common cOaSting ground" Labray v3 Leiken 252 Mass. 579.
 'Tn another Massachusetts case 1t appeared that the plaintiff was coasting on street where it was prohibited. Approaching an inter- section he saw the defendants truck coming at high rate of speed and ran up an embankment. The evil dence showed that the truck fol- lowed him onto the embankment and ran over him. At the time of the injury the plaintiff was off his sled. The court said, "The plaintiff con- tends that when injured his viola tion of law was at an end and that it could not be found on the evil dence that he was at that time With in the limits of the street. But we are of the opinion that. even though the plaintiff was not upon his slec when injured and if it be assumed that he reached a point outside the limits of the street, his illegal act in sliding upon the street was so in- timately connected with his injury as a proxmate cause that as mat ter of law he is barred from recov- cry" upon the question of negli- gence. Query vs Howe 1930 Adv. Sh, 1963."