Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the law cannot, in the absence of special circum-
stances,29 escape liability for injury caused thereby
to the other, or recover in case he himself is in-
jured,30 even though he had no time to turn out
after discovering the other.31 The party at fault
is liable for injury sustained by the other, even
though no actual collision between the vehicles
occur.32 But the fact that one of the meeting
travelers is on the wrong side of the road or fails
to turn to the right does not show that he was
negligent, as a matter of law, and is not conclu-
sive of contributory negligence on his part prevent-
ing recovery against the other,33 although it raises
in safety. Wood v. Luscomb, 23 Wis. | 860, 27 AmSR 753.

287.

29.

See infra § 418.

30. Cal.-Diehl V. Roberts, 134 Cal. 164, 66 P 202; Slaughter V. Goldberg, etc., Co., 26 Cal. A. 318, 147 P 90.

30

Co. v.

Del.-Lemmon v. Broadwater, Del. 472, 108 A 273; Schockley v. Shepherd, 14 Del. 270, 32 A 173. Ida.-Cupples Mercantile Bow, 32 Ida. 774, 189 P 48. Ill. Williams v. Louis, 204 Ill. A. 62, 67 [cit Cyc]; Donovan v. Lambert, 139 Ill. A. 532; Fehrney v. O'Donnell, 107 Ill. A. 608; Dunn v. Moratz, 92 III. A. 477. Iowa.-Roennau Whitson, 188 Iowa 138, 175 NW 849; Needy v. Littlejohn, 137 Iowa 704, 115 NW 483.

V.

Me.-Stobie v. Sullivan, 118 Me. 483, 105 A 714; Palmer v. Barker, 11 Me. 338.

Mass.-Spofford v. Harlow, 3 Al

len 176.

Minn. Terrill v. Virginia Brewing Co., 130 Minn. 46, 153 NW 136, LRA 1915E 1028, AnnCas1917C 453.

Miss.-Flynt v. Fondren, 122 Miss. 248, 84 S 188.

N. H.-Brooks v. Hart, 14 N. H. 307.

N. J.-State v. Unwin, 75 N. J. L. 500, 68 A 110 [aff 73 N. J. L. 529, 64 A 163].

N. Y.-Quinn v. Pietro, 38 App. Div. 484, 56 NYS 419; Hefferman v. Barber, 36 App. Div. 163, 55 NYS 418; Schimpf v. Sliter, 64 Hun 463, 19 NYS 644; Burdick v. Worrall, 4 Barb. 596; Pike v. Bosworth, 7 NYSt 665; Simmonson V. Stellenmerf, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 194.

N. C.-Goodrich v. Matthews, 177 N. C. 198, 98 SE 529.

Okl.-Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes, 54 Okl. 519, 153 P 1169, 1172 [cit Cyc]. R. I.-Pick v. Thurston, 25 R. I. 36, 54 A 600; Angell v. Lewis, 20 R. I. 391, 39 A 521, 76 AmSR 881.

Wash.-Lloyd v. Calhoun, 82 Wash. 35. 143 P 458.

Wis.-John v. Pierce, 172 Wis. 44, 178 NW 297; Luedtke v. Jeffery, 89 Wis. 136. 61 NW 292.

Eng. Pluckwell v. Wilson, 5 C. & P. 375, 24 ECL 612; Chaplin V. Hawes, 3 C. & P. 554, 14 ECL 711. Que. White v. Gnaedinger, 7 Que. Q. B. 156.

31. Simmonson v. Stellenmerf, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 194.

32. Roy V. North Kansas City Dev. Co., (Mo. A.) 226 SW 965; Crampton v. Ivie, 124 N. C. 591, 32 SE 98; Mahogany v. Ward, 16 R. I. 479, 17 A 860, 27 AmSR 753.

[a] Rule applied.—(1) Negligence of the driver of a team in not giving a motorcycle rider his share of the road may be found to be the proximate cause of such rider being kicked, when passing, by a mule led behind the team. Roy V. North Kansas City Dev. Co., (Mo. A.) 226 SW 965. (2) Where the refusal of one driver to turn out compelled the

a presumption of negligence.34 One may not be liable even though he drove to the left,35 or failed to yield one half of the road, as required by statute, 36 if that was not the proximate cause of the accident; and on the other hand one may recover, although he drove to the left, if his act was not the proximate cause of the injury;37 and even though defendant was on the wrong side of the road plaintiff cannot recover if he failed to use ordinary care, and the injury was proximately caused by his own negligence.38

Persons liable. Although the statute limits the responsibility in damages to the person who is actu

33. Cal.-Hagenah v. Bidwell, (A.) 189 P 799; Lawrence v. Goodwill, (A.) 186 P 781. Iowa. NW 483.

Needy v. Littlejohn, 115

La.-Pottor v. Glassell, 83 S 898. Me. Neal v. Rendall, 98 Me. 69, 56 A 209, 63 LRA 668.

Md. Vonderhorst Brewing Co. v. Amrhine, 98 Md. 406.

Mass.-Wood v. Boston El. R. Co., 188 Mass. 161, 74 NE 298; Randolph v. O'Riordon, 155 Mass. 331; Damon V. Scituate, 119 Mass. 66, 20 AmR 315; Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen 18; Spofford V. Harlow, 3 Allen 176; Smith v. Gardner, 11 Gray 418.

Mich.-Tyler v. Nelson, 109 Mich. 37, 66 NW 671.

[blocks in formation]

S. C.-Sims v. Eleazer, 106 SE 854. Wash. Hartley V. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407, 165 P 106. Eng.-Chaplin v. Hawes, 3 C. & P. | 554, 14 ECL 711. Man.-Compton Allward, 22

V.

Mo.-Roy v. North Kansas City Dev. Co., (A.) 209 SW 990; Linstroth v. Peper, (A.) 188 SW 1125; Man. 92, 1 DomLR 107. Beckerle v. Weiman, 12 Mo. A. 354. See Bourne v. Whitman, 209 Mass. Nebr.-Hackett V. Alamito Sani- 155, 95 NE 404, 35 LRANS 701 (drivtary Dairy Co., 90 Nebr. 200, 133 NWing on wrong side of road some evi227, 41 LRANS 337, AnnCas1913A dence of negligence).

829.

72.

N. H.-Lyons v. Child, 61 N. H. N. Y.-Quinn v. O'Keeffe, 9 App. Div. 68. 41 NYS 116 [app dism 151 N. Y. 633 mem, 45 NE 1134 mem]. N. C.-Goodrich v. Matthews, 177 N. C. 198, 98 SE 529. Okl.-Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes, 54 Okl. 519, 153 P 1169. Pa.-Hershinger

v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 25 Pa. Super. 147. S. C.-Sims v. Eleazer, 106 SE 854. Utah.-White v. Shipley, 48 Utah 496. 160 P 441.

Wash. Hartley V. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407, 165 P 106.

Wis.-Luedtke v. Jeffery, 89 Wis. 136, 61 NW 292; Neanow v. Uttech, 46 Wis. 581, 1 NW 221.

Eng.-Turley v. Thomas, 8 C. & P. 103, 34 ECL 633; Williams v. Holland, 6 C. & P. 23, 25 ECL 302; Pluckwell v. Wilson, 5 C. & P. 375, 24 ECL 612; Chaplin v. Hawes, 3 C. & P. 554, 14 ECL 711; Mayhew v. Boyce, 1 Stark. 423, 2 ECL 164.

N. B.-Stout v. Adams, 35 N. B. 118.

[a] Person on wrong side of road has burden to prove that his fault did not cause accident. Potter v. Glassell, 146 La. 687, 83 S 898 35. Ala.-Morrison v. Clark, 196 Ala. 670, 72 S 305. Cal-Hagenah v. Bidwell, (A.) 189 P 799; Baillargeon v. Myers, 27 Cal. A. 187, 149 P 378.

Iowa.-Cook v. Fogarty, 103 Iowa 500, 72 NW 677, 39 LRA 488. Kan.-Ternes v. Giles, 93 Kan. 435, 144 P 1014.

Glassell, 146 La.

V. Lockett, 161

La.-Potter V. 687, 83 S 898. Mass.-Meservey Mass. 332, 37 NE 310. N. H.-Taylor v. Thomas, 77 N. H. 410, 92 A 740.

N. Y.-Quinn v. O'Keeffe, 9 App. Div. 68, 41 NYS 116 [app dism 151 N. Y. 633, 45 NE 1134]; Simmonson V. Stellenmerf, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 194.

Okl.-Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes 54 Okl. 519, 153 P 1169, 1172 [cit_Cyc]. R. I.-Angell v. Lewis, 20 R. I. 391, 39 A 521, 78 AmSR 881.

N. B.-Stout v. Adams, 35 N. B. 118.

Que. Brownstein v. Imperial Electric Light Co., 17 Que. Super. 292. Que.-Brownstein v. Imperial Elec"Ordinarily, if a traveler, on meet-tric Light Co., 17 Que. Super. 292. ing another, fails to yield half of 36. Needy v. Littlejohn, 137 Iowa the road by turning to the right, and 704. 115 NW 483.

such failure causes the injury, it 37. Riepe v. Elting, 89 Iowa 82. would be actionable negligence; but 56 NW 285, 48 AmSR 356, 26 it must depend, in the very nature of LRA 769; Payne v. Nelson, 16 KyL things and the diversity of situa-239; Spofford V. Harlow, 3 Allen tions likely to arise, upon the cir- (Mass.) 176; Knox v. Memphis St. cumstances existing at the time of R. Co., 4 Tenn. Civ. A. 481, 489 [cit the meeting. In other words, the Cyc]. travelers, notwithstanding the general rule of law, are required, in a measure, to accommodate themselves to the situation presented." Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes, 54 Okl. 519, 527, 153 P 1169.

Circumstances justifying nonobservance of rule see infra 8 418. 34. Ala.-Morrison v. Clark, 196 Ala. 670. 72 S 305.

other to drive upon the side of the Cal. Lawrence v. Goodwill, (A.)

38. Ind.-F. W. Cook Brewing Co. v. Ball, 22 Ind. A. 656, 52 NE 1002. La.-Lee v. Foley, 113 La. 663, 37 S 594.

Me.-Kennard v. Burton, 25 Me. 39, 43 AmD 249.

Mass-Smith v. Gardner, 11 Gray 418; Parker v. Adams, 12 Metc. 415, 46 AmD 694 [crit Fales v. Dearborn, 1 Pick. 345].

N. H.-Brember v. Jones, 67 N. H. 374, 30 A 411. 26 LRA 408; Brooks v. Hart, 14 N. H. 307.

N. Y.-Heffernan v. Barber, 36 App. Div. 163, 55 NYS 418; Newman v.

road, and he was injured by a colli-186 P 781. sion with a post standing near the Iowa.- Hubbard v. Bartholomew, highway, the former was liable. Ma- 163 Iowa 58, 144 NW 13, 49 LRANS hogany v. Ward, 16 R. I. 479, 17 A 443; Cook v. Fogarty, 103 Iowa 500,

§§ 415-418]

39

HIGHWAYS

ally guilty of the offense of failing to drive to the right, this does not prevent an action based upon the common-law liability against the master of the driver for negligence.*

43

40

[416] (2) Horseman or Light Vehicle Passing
Heavier Vehicle. It is a customary rule for horse-
men 41 to avoid vehicles, and for light vehicles to
This rule applies to
vehicles.42
avoid heavier
bicycles, but a bicycle need not avoid an ordinary
team under a statute providing that light vehicles
44 On the
must give way to heavily laden wagons.
other hand, it is the duty of heavy vehicles to keep
well to one side to allow lighter vehicles to pass,
and failure to do so will render the former liable
for accidents directly attributable thereto.45 When
it is difficult or unsafe for the heavier vehicle to
turn to the right it should stop and wait a reason-
able time for the lighter vehicle to pass.*
The law
[417] (3) Meeting at Cross Roads.
of the road requiring turning to the right does not
apply to travelers approaching each other at right
angles at the intersection of two roads, although

Ernst, 10 NYS 310; Simmonson v. |
Stellenmerf, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 194.
Okl.-Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes, 54
Okl. 519, 153 P 1169, 1172.
Pa.-Rowland v.
Pa. 598, 44 A 918.

46

47

the contrary is the rule in some jurisdictions.48
The rights of travelers so meeting are correlative;49
each must use due care,50 and approaching at speed
a turn without ability to see up the cross road
is commonly negligence.51 In the absence of statu-
tory provisions 52 due care generally requires that
the traveler first reaching the crossing be given the
opportunity to clear it,53 and a traveler on a public
road has the right of way over one coming out of
a private way.54 Municipal regulations giving the
right of way to vehicles coming from certain direc-
tions have no extraterritorial effect,55 and do not
relieve the drivers from the duty to use reasonable
One turning a corner should keep away
from the left curb.57

care.56

[§ 418] (4) Justification for Violation of Rule. Notwithstanding the law of the road special circumstances may justify, or even require, turning to the left,58 as where the right side is obstructed or is otherwise not in proper condition for safe passage, ,59 and the roadway is of sufficient width to permit use of the left hand side without danger

188
V.

V. Kloster,
Sweenie, 15 Ill. A. 486.
Iowa.-Wagner
NW 840; Buzick
Iowa 174, 175
Todman, 179 Iowa 1019, 162 NW 259.
Mass.-Garigan v. Berry, 12 Allen

Cal.-Eddy v. Stowe, (A.) 185 P 1024; Slaughter v. Goldberg, etc., Co., 26 Cal. A. 318, 147 P 90. Del.-Wollaston

198. Wanamaker. 193

[blocks in formation]

40. Reynolds Mass. 313.

V. Hanrahan,

23

100

41. Grier v. Sampson, 27 Pa. 183; Pa. 196; Beach V. Parmeter, Brooks v. Thomas, 17 Phila. (Pa.) 45; Landa v. McDermott, (Tex.) 16 SW 802; Washburn v. Tracy, 2 D. Chipm. (Vt.) 128, 15 AmD 661.

42. Peltier v. Bradley, 67 Conn. 42. 34 A 712, 32 LRA 651; Graves v. Shattuck, 35 N. H. 257, 69 AmD 536; Grier v. Sampson, 27 Pa. 183; Brooks v. Thomas, 17 Phila. (Pa.) 45. custom to that [a] In Iowa a effect seems to have been regarded as to some extent affecting the absolute requirement of the statute. Riepe v. Elting, 89 Iowa 82, 56 NW 285. 48 AmSR 356, 26 LRA 769.

[b] In Massachusetts it is said that such discrepancy in the weight of the vehicles is to be regarded by the jury in determining the respective duties of the drivers thereof. Wrinn v. Jones. 111 Mass. 360. 43.

Howland v. Wanamaker, 7 Pa. 249. 20 Pa. Co. 621. V. American Product 44. Foote Co., 195 Pa. 190. 45 A 934, 78 AmSR 806. 49 LRA 764.

45. Standard Oil Co. v. Hartman, 102 Md. 563, 62 A 805.

46. Kennard v. Burton, 25 Me. 39, 43 AmD 249.

84.

N. H.-Gilbert v. Burque, 72 N. H.
521, 57 A 927.

N. Y.-Koester v. Decker, 22 Misc.
Pa.-Hitchins V.
353, 49 NYS 276.
Super. 366.

52.

Wilson,

V.

68 Pa.

Weber v. Greenebaum, (Pa.)

113 A 413.

114 A

v. Stiltz, Streeter v. Marshalltown, Iowa 123 Iowa 449, 99 NW 114. La-Lee v. Foley, 113 La. 663, 37 S 594; Loyacano v. Jurgens, 50 La. Ann. 441. 23 S 717.

Md. Standard Oil Co. v. Hartman, 102 Md. 563. 62 A 805.

Mich.-Tyler v. Nelson, 109 Mich. 37, 66 NW 671.

N. Y.-Burdick v. Worrall, 4 Barb. 596.

Okl.-Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes, 54 Okl. 519, 153 P 1169.

Tenn. Knox v. Memphis St. R. Co., 4 Tenn. Civ. A. 481, 489 [quot Cycl. Pacific Car Wash.-Reynolds Co., 75 Wash. 1, 134 P 512. 51. McCorkle v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assoc., 107 La. 461, 31 S S. C.-Sims v. Eleazer, 106 SE 854. Co. v. Bland, Tex. - Auto Sales 762; Taylor v. Long Island R. Co., 16 App. Div. 1, 44 NYS 820; Hurley "This rule is not an inflexible one, v. New York, etc., Erewing Co., 13 (Civ. A.) 194 SW 1021. but must be followed unless circumApp. Div. 167, 43 NYS 259; Nelson v. crossing sidewalk stance and common prudence dictate Schick v. JeneBraman, 22 R. I. 283, 47 Á 696. [a] Bicyclist a different course." Nelson v. Brafrom behind fence. vein, 145 La. 333, 338, 82 S 360. man, 22 R. I. 283, 47 A 696. [a] The law of the road is a reaboth of exacts and sonable one Care required of drivers of vehicles generally see infra § 421. parties an equal degree of care, and, if circumstances are such as to com[a] Construction of statute.-An pel one to go to the left, it is not act providing that when two vehicles negligent to do so, but, in the abare approaching the intersection of sence of such justifying conditions, the right other his side of the road, and he two roads at the same time, the ve- the duty of each is to concede to the approaching from hicle Potter v. the accident. shall have the right of way, applies who can, and does not, carries the only where the vehicles arrive at ap-burden of showing that his fault did Weber not cause Glassell, 146 La. 687, 83 S 898. [b] proximately the same time. Where actions of frightened v. Greenebaum, (Pa.) 113 A 413. Rupp v. Keebler, 175 Ill. A. v. Shepherd, horse forced plaintiff on left side of 619; Elgin Dairy Co. 183 Ind. 466, 108 NE 234, 109 NE road, this is not negligence per se. 353; Boggs v. Jewell Tea Co., 263 Ecdy v. Stowe, (Cal. A.) 185 P 1024. Pa. 413, 106 A 781; Hitchins v. Wilson, 68 Pa. Super. 366; Fow v. Adams Express Co., 68 Pa. Super. 345; Hull v. Crescent Mfg. Co., 109 Wash. 129, 186 P 322.

[blocks in formation]

Turning to left in order to stop on that side of road see infra § 420. Conn.-Strouse v. Whittlesey, Ind. Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. 41 Conn. 559. Slifer, (A.) 72 NE 1055. La.-Loyacano v. Jurgens, 50 La. V. Jackson Light, Ann. 441, 23 S 717. Miss.-Palotta etc., Co., 107 Miss. 61. 64 S 938. N. Y.-Quinn v. O'Keeffe, 9 App. Worrall, 4 Barb. 596; Div. 68, 41 NYS 116 [app dism 151 Burdick N. Y. 633 mem, 45 NE 1134 mem]; 2 Misc. 238, 21 NYS 957. Mooney v. Trow Directory, etc., Co., See Cutright v. Adams Express Co., except to turn right 175 Ill. A. 269 (statutes requiring traveler where it is impracticable from the nature of the ground).

V.

[a] Thus a municipal ordinance, 47. Morse v. Sweenie, 15 Ill. A. Iowa providing that vehicles going in east486; Wagner v. Kloster, 188 174, 175 NW 840; Buzick v. Todman, erly and westerly directions shall south when 179 Iowa 1019, 162 NW 259: Norris have the right of way over those v. Saxton, 158 Mass. 46, 32 NE 954; proceeding north and Smith v. Gardner, 11 Gray (Mass.) they met at an intersection, is not to be relied upon by vehicles meetDolan, 10 Cush. 418: Lovejoy V. Miller v. Weck, 186 Ky. 552, (Mass.) 495; Price-Bass Co. v. Daw-ing at intersections outside of the son, 7 Tenn. Civ. A. 192; Knox v. city. 56. Ray v. Brannan, 196 Ala. 113. Memphis St. R. Co., 4 Tenn. Civ. A. 217 SW 904. 481. [a] Rule applied. The driver of Reitz V. 48. Hodgkins, 185 Ind. 72 S 16; Erwin v. Traud, (N. J.) 100 Rothschild, 34 a vehicle who turns to the left only 57. Henning 163, 112 NE 386; F. W. Cook Brew-A 184. Foote v. so far as is reasonably necessary to NYS 840; Misc. 68 ing Co. v. Ball, 22 Ind. A. 656, 52 NE 1002. Strouse American Product Co., 195 Pa. 190, pass a standing team is not liable 45 A 934. 78 AmSR 806, 49 LRA 764. for a collision with a vehicle coming V. Clark, 196 from the opposite direction. 58. Ala.-Morrison v. Whittlesey, 41 Conn. 559; Palotta Ala. 670, 72 S 305.

49. 255. 50. Ill. Campbell v. Chicago City v. R. Co., 212 Ill. A. 344; Morse

Hilton v. Iseman, 212 Ill. A.

773,

V.

to

to others, although it has been held that the mere roughness of the right side of the road is no excuse for failing to turn out.61 So one compelled to turn to the left in order to avoid a collision, because of another's violation of the law of the road, is not negligent.62 On the contrary a driver is negligent if he keeps to the right of the road when he could avoid an accident by turning to the left.63 But some authorities have held that, where it is impracticable to turn to the right, a traveler may hold his position, but is not justified in turning to the left in violation of the statute.64 One driving on the wrong side of the road is not justified in crossing to his proper side, if this is already occupied by another vehicle, merely in order to assert the rule of the road;65 and a driver who is injured by a horse ridden recklessly toward him may be guilty of contributory negligence in crossing over to the proper side of the road.66 Where a collision would not have occurred had not plaintiff turned to the left, he cannot recover because of his mistaken belief that defendant was not going to turn out.67

[§ 419] b. Overtaking and Passing.68 If two persons in separate vehicles are traveling in the same direction, neither is compelled to travel bev. Jackson Light, etc., Co., 107 Miss. 61, 64 S 938.

60. Raymond v. Hill, 168 Cal: 473, 143 P 743.

61. Earing v. Lansingh, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 185. 62.

Potter v. Glassell, 146 La. 687, 83 S 898.

63. Wrinn v. Jones, 111 Mass. 360; Landa v. McDermott, (Tex.) 16 SW 802; O'Malley v. Dorn, 7 Wis. 236, 73 AmD 403; Turley v. Thomas, 8 C. & P. 103, 34 ECL 633.

[a] A traveler may not remain stubbornly and doggedly upon the right of the traveled part of the highway, and wantonly produce a collision which a slight change of position would have avoided. NeaDow v. Uttech, 46 Wis. 581, 1 NW 221; O'Malley v. Dorn, 7 Wis. 236, 73 AmD 403.

64. Cupples Mercantile Co. v. Bow, 32 Ida. 774, 189 P 48.

65. Tyler v. Nelson, 109 Mich. 37, 66 NW 671; Brooks v. Hart, 14 N. H. 307; Cruden v. Fentham, 2 Esp. 685.

66. Tompkins v. Barnes, 145 App. Div. 637, 130 NYS 320. 67.

Lloyd v. Calhoun, 82 Wash. 35, 143 P 458, 78 Wash. 438, 139 P 231.

68. Automobiles see Motor Vehicles [28 Cyc 28].

69. Clifford v. Tyman, 61 N. H. 508; Mochler v. Shaftsbury, 46 Vt. 580, 14 AmR 634.

70. Clifford v. Tyman, 61 N. H. 508; Wright v. Mitchell, 252 Pa. 325, 329. 97 A 478 [quot Cyc]; O'Donnell v. Johnson, 36 R. I. 308, 90 A 165. But see Com. v. Dooley, 6 Pa. Dist. 381, 19 Pa. Co. 367 (rule requires overtaking vehicle to pass to the left).

71. Ark. Temple v. Walker, 127 Ark. 279, 192 SW 200.

Del-Campbell v. Walker, 25 Del. 41. 78 A 601.

Mass-Foster v. Curtis, 213 Mass. 79, 99 NE 961, 42 LRANS 1188. Ann Cas1913E 1116; Brown v. Thayer, 212 Mass. 392, 99 NE 237; Smith v. Conway, 121 Mass. 216.

N. J.-State v. Unwin, 75 N. J. L. 500, 68 A 110 [aff 73 N. J. L. 529, 64 A 163].

|

71

hind the other, nor has either the exclusive right to precede the 'other, and the rear travelcr may pass to the front when he can do so with safety. 69 In the absence of any statute to the contrary, the overtaking vehicle may as a rule pass the preceding one on either side.70 But in some jurisdictions the overtaking vehicle is required by statute to pass to the left, and in other jurisdictions to the right,72 of the one ahead of it. But a violation of the law is not conclusive evidence of negligence,73 since circumstances may justify a passing on the wrong side. Even in the absence of statute it has been held in some jurisdictions that the law of the road requires an overtaking vehicle to pass on the left.75 The overtaking vehicle must use proper caution in passing,76 and in keeping a safe distance behind when not passing;" and the fact that the law requires a driver to pass the preceding vehicle on the left does not relieve him from the duty to watch for vehicles coming from the opposite direction.78 If, as the result of an attempt to pass, injury results, without fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle in front, the latter may recover if he did not contribute to the injury;79 and this is the case, although the team in advance was standing still.80 The question of NYS 442. Pa.-Wright v. Mitchell, 252 Pa. 325, 329, 97 A 478 [quot Cyc].

R. I.-Ribas v. Revere Rubber Co., 37 R. I. 189, 91 A 58.

Tenn. Young v. Cowden, 98 Tenn. 577, 40 SW 1088.

a vehicle passing a carriage traveling in the same direction shall drive to the left of the traveled part of the road does not prohibit the passing upon the right except where it is reasonably impracticable to pass upon the left, but only where it is not reasonably safe and prudent to [a] Only reasonable care required. pass upon the right. Smith v. Con--Heffernan v. Alfred Barber's Son, way, 121 Mass. 216. 36 App. Div. 163, 55 NYS 418; Ribas v. Revere Rubber Co., 37 R. I. 189, 91 A 58.

[b] Rule applies at intersection of roads. Paschel v. Hunter, 88 N. J. L. 445, 97 A 40. 72. Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407, 165 P 106.

73. Smith v. Conway, 121 Mass. 216; Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407, 165 P 106.

74. Wright V. Mitchell, 252 Pa. 325, 97 A 478.

[a] Illustration.-Passing on the right is justified when foremost team is traveling on left side of road so

as

to prevent overtaking vehicle passing on the left. Wright v. Mitchell, 252 Pa. 325, 97 A 478.

75. Raymond v. Hill, 168 Cal. 473, 143 P 743; Avegno v. Hart, 25 La. Ann. 235, 13 AmR 133.

[a] In England, if the hindmost of two vehicles traveling in the same direction seeks to pass the other, the latter should bear to the left and the former should pass on the off side. Turley v. Thomas. 8 C. & P. 103, 34 ECL 633; Wayde v. Carr, 2 D. & R. 255, 16 ECL 84; Wordsworth v. Willan, 5 Esp. 273.

[ocr errors]

Ariz. Stanfield Ariz. 1, 43 P 221.

76. U. S.-Salminen v. Ross, 185 Fed. 997 [aff 191 Fed. 504, 112 CCA 148]. V. Anderson, 5 Conn. Knowles Crampton, 55 Conn. 336, 11 A 593; Hotchkiss Hoy, 41 Conn. 568. Del.-Simeone v. Lindsay. 22 Del. 224, 65 A 778; McLane v. Sharpe, 2 | Del. 481.

V.

[b] Warning. It is the duty of a driver desiring to pass from the rear to give a signal indicating his desire, where the driver of the vehicle ahead is not otherwise apprised of his approach. Dunkelbeck Meyer, 140 Minn. 283, 167 NW 1034; Young v. Cowden, 98 Tenn. 577, 40 SW 1088.

V.

[c] Driving under whip in a gallop from the rear of and past an. other vehicle containing women and children traveling quietly along the public highway is a wrongful act, since in the ordinary course of events this will frighten the team hitched to the latter vehicle and endanger the lives of the persons therein. Thomas v. Royster, 98 Ky. 206, 32 SW 613, 17 KyL 783.

[d] Facts showing negligence. Salminen v. Ross, 185 Fed. 997 [aff 191 Fed. 504, 112 CCA 148]; Odom v. Schmidt, 52 La. Ann. 2129. 28 S 350.

Care required of drivers of vehicles generally see infra § 421 et

seq.

77.

Bierbach v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 14 Fed. 826; Adams v. Swift, 172 Mass 521, 52 NE 1068 (where one ahead stopped suddenly); Post v. v.Olmstead, 47 Nebr. 893, 66 NW 828; Wright v. Mitchell, 252 Pa. 325, 329. 97 A 478 [quot Cyc].

Ky. Thomas v. Royster, 98 Ky. 206, 32 SW 613, 17 KyL 783.

La.-Avegno v. Hart, 25 La. Ann. 235, 13 AmR 133.

Mass.-Adams v. Swift, 172 Mass. 521, 52 NE 1068.

Minn. Dunkelbeck v. Meyer, 140 Minn. 283, 167 NW 1034.

78. Smith v. Barnard, (N. J.) 81 A 734. 79. Del.-McLane v. Sharpe, 2 Del. 481.

Ill-Chicago Hansom Cab Co. v. McCarthy, 35 Ill. A. 199.

La.-Avegno v. Hart, 25 La. Ann. 235. 13 AmR 133.

Me.-Foster v. Goddard, 40 Me. 64. Mo.-Streett V. Laumier, 34 Mo. N. H.-Clifford v. Tyman, 61 N. H. 508.

N. J.-Mahan v. Walker, (Sup.) 114 469.

[blocks in formation]

Eng. Mayhew v. Boyce, 1 Stark. 423, 2 ECL 164.

80. Knowles V. Crampton. 56 Conn. 336, 11 A 593; Odom ▼.

84

ordinary care varies with the width of the highway practicable for travel, the season of the year, and other circumstances.81 In some jurisdictions the statute requires the leading team to move to the right so as to allow a following vehicle to pass on the left;82 but generally the leading team may travel anywhere it pleases, using, however, due care.s A driver is bound to yield way enough for one behind him to pass when it is practicable, and he is requested to do so, and when by keeping his place the one desiring to pass is prevented from doing so. But he is not bound to turn out where there is room for the following vehicle to pass without way being given,86 or where it is impracticable to turn out,87 or no request to pass is made.88 Nor is a driver bound either to turn aside or look behind him before stopping; 89 but if he suddenly slows up or stops, knowing that another is so close behind that such action will probably cause injury, and an injury in fact results, he is guilty of contributory negligence.90

85

94

93

road to the other,91 and one desiring to stop at premises on the left side of the road may cross over to that side without violating the law,92 notwithstanding the statute requires vehicles to turn to the right on stopping. In such case the driver must use due care, if he has reason to believe that another is behind him or at his side;95 but he need not under all circumstances look behind him or sideways before crossing the street,96 or necessarily anticipate that a team is behind, or give a signal;98 and may recover from another whose carelessness causes a collision.99 It has been held that, where a vehicle traveling on the right side of the road meets another traveling on the same side, the latter must turn to the right notwithstanding he desires to keep to the left in order to turn conveniently into premises on the other side.1

[§ 421] D. Care Required in Use of Road 2—1.. In General. The rights of persons using a highway for travel are mutual and coördinate, and it is the duty of each so to exercise his right of passage as not to cause injury to another having a like right.3 To avoid such injury one is under the obligation of exercising ordinary or reasonable care, and every Misc. 813, 74 NYS

[§ 420] c. Turning Across Road. The law requiring meeting vehicles to turn to the right does not apply to vehicles crossing from one side of the Schmidt, 52 La. Ann. 2129, 28 S 350; | Maas v. Fauser, 36 Smoak v. Martin, 108 S. C. 472, 94 861. SE 869; Young v. Cowden, 98 Tenn. Pa. Wright v. Mitchell, 252 Pa. 577, 40 SW 1088. 325, 329, 97 A 478 [quot Cyc]. Wash.-Abby v. Wood, 43 Wash. 379, 86 P 558.

[a] Where the statute requires vehicles to keep to the right of the center of the highway, and a vehicle which has stopped on the left side is run into by a vehicle coming from the rear, the failure of the latter to keep to the right of the center is the proximate cause of the accident. Smoak v. Martin, 108 S. C. 472, 94 SE 869.

81. Burnham v. Butler, 31 N. Y. 480.

82. State v. Unwin, 75 N. J. L. 500, 68 A 110 [aff 73 N. J. L. 529, 64 A 163]: Ribas v. Revere Rubber Co., 37 R. I. 189, 91 A 58; Young v. Cowden, 98 Tenn. 577, 40 SW 1088. And see cases supra note 80.

83. Iowa. Elenz V. Conrad, 123 Iowa 522, 99 NW 138.

[a] Where a runaway team was approaching from behind, the driver of the foremost vehicle was held not to be guilty of contributory negligence for failure to look around and attempt to get out of the way, he having had no intimation that the team was approaching. Abby V. Wood, 43 Wash. 379, 86 P 558.

Care required generally see infra § 421 et seq.

85. Adolph v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 530 [aff 43 N. Y. Super. 199, 65 N. Y. 554, rev 33 N. Y. Super. 186]; Burnham v. Butler, 31 N. Y. 480.

86.

Elenz v. Conrad, 123 Iowa 522, 99 NW 138; Adolph v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y. 530 [aff 43 N. Y. Super. 199], 65 N. Y. 554 [rev 33 N. Y. Super. 186]; Bolton v. Colder, 1401 Watts (Pa.) 360. And see cases supra note 84.

Me.-Foster v. Goddard, 40 Me. 64. Mass.-Holt v. Cutler, 185 Mass. 24, 69 NE 333.

Minn.-Dunkelbeck v. Meyer, Minn. 283, 167 NW 1034.

Pa.-Hershinger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 25 Pa. Super. 147. Care required by drivers of vehicles generally see infra § 421. 95. Rand v. Syms, 162 Mass. 163,

38 NE 196. 96. Rand v. Syms, 162 Mass. 163, 38 NE 196.

97. Crabtree v. Otterson, 22 App. Div. 393, 47 NYS 977; Northridge v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co.. 15 Misc. 66, 36 NYS 263; Young v. Cowden, 98 Tenn. 577, 40 SW 1088.

98. Bierbach v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 14 Fed. 826. 99. Northridge V. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 15 Misc. 66, 36 NYS 263; Dater v. Fletcher, 14 Misc. 288, 35 NYS 686.

1. Heffernan V. Barber, 36 App. Div. 163, 55 NYS 418.

2. By motor vehicles see Motor Vehicles [28 Cyc 27, 37]). City streets see Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 912].

Negligence generally gence [29 Cyc 400].

see Negli

3. Ala. Dozier v. Woods, 190 Ala. 279, 67 S 283.

Colo.-Adams Express Co. v. AlY.dridge, 20 Colo. A. 74, 77 P 6.

N. Y.-Lorenz v. Tisdale, 127 App. 87. Adolph v. Central Park, etc., Div. 433, 111 NYS 173. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 530 [aff 43 N. Pa. Wright v. Mitchell. 252 Pa. Super. 199], 65 N. Y. 554 [rev 33 N. 325, 329, 97 A 478 [quot Cyc]; Bol-Y. Super. 186]. ton v. Colder, 1 Watts 360. 88. Adolph v. Central Park, etc., [a] Rule applied. (1) Driver R. Co.. 76 N. Y. 530 [aff 43 N. Y. who did not know that bicyclist was Super. 1991, 65 N. Y. 554 [rev 33 N. trying to pass, and swerved into her, Y. Super. 186]. held not liable. Holt v. Cutler, 185 89. Strever v. Woodard, 160 Iowa Mass. 24, 69 NE 333. (2) The fol-332, 141 NW 931, 46 LRANS 644. lowing vehicles cannot justify run- 90. Strever v. Woodard, 178 Iowa ning into the one ahead because the 30, 158 NW 504; Maas v. Fauser, 36 latter failed to turn out. Dunkelbeck Misc. 813, 74 NYS 861. v. Meyer, 140 Minn. 283, 167 NW 1034; Bolton v. Colder, 1 Watts (Pa.) 360.

[b]. A bicycle on the right side of the road is entitled to keep such position as against a vehicle coming from behind. Com. v. Dooley, 6 Pa. Dist. 381. 19 Pa. Co. 367.

91. Lyford V. Jacob Schmidt Brewing Co., 110 Minn. 158, 124 NW 831. And see cases infra note 92.

92. Conn.-Peltier v. Bradley, etc., Co., 67 Conn. 42, 34 A 712, 32 LRA 651.

Me.-Palmer v. Barker. 11 Me. 338. N. J.-Mahan V. Walker, (Sup.) 84. Ind.-Newhouse v. Miller, 35114 A 246; Daly v. Case, 88 N. J. L. Ind. 463. 295, 95 A 973.

Iowa. Aznoe v. Conway, 72 Iowa 568. 34 NW 422.

Kan. Moulton v. Aldrich, 28 Kan. 300.

Mich.-Pigott v. Engle, 60 Mich. 221, 27 NW 3.

Minn.-Dunkelbeck v. Meyer, 140 Minn. 283. 167 NW 1034.

Nebr.-Hackett V. Alamito Sanitary Dairy Co., 90 Nebr. 200, 133 NW 227. 41 LRANS 337, AnnCas1913A 829.

N. Y.-Burdick v. Worrall, 4 Barb. 596.

Tenn.-Young v. Cowden, 98 Tenn. 577. 40 SW 1088.

93. Young V. Cowden, 98 Tenn. 577. 40 SW 1088.

Ky-Payne v. Smith. 4 Dana 497. Md.-Fletcher v. Dixon, 107 Md. 420, 68 A 875.

Mich.-Pigott v. Engle, 60 Mich. 221, 27 NW 3; People's Ice Co. v. Excelsior, 44 Mich. 229, 6 NW 636, 38 AmR 246.

Pa.-Baker V. Fehr, 97 Pa. 70; Spangler v. Markley, 39 Pa. Super. 351.

R. I.-Collette v. Page. 114 A 136. Wis. -Mittelstadt v. Morrison, 76 Wis. 265, 44 NW 1103.

4. Ala.-Dozier v. Woods, 190 Ala. 279, 67 S 283. Cal. - -Skinner V. Knickrehm, 10 Cal. A. 596, 102 P 947. Conn. Andrews v. Dougherty, 112 A 700.

Del. Campbell v. Walker, 25 Del. 41, 78 A 601; Simeone v. Lindsay, 22 Del. 224. 65 A 778.

Ill-Johnson V. Chicago City R. Co., 185 Ill. A. 411.

Md.-Fletcher v. Dixon. 107 Md. 420, 68 A 875; Standard Oil Co. v. Hartman, 102 Md. 563, 62 A 805.

Mass.-Welsh v. Concord, etc., R. Co., 223 Mass. 184, 111 NE 693.

94. Ala.-Overton v. Bush, 2 Ala.
A. 623, 56 S 852, 854 [cit Cyc].
Conn.-Peltier v. Bradley, etc., Co.,
67 Conn. 42, 34 A 712, 32 LRA 651.
Me.-Palmer v. Barker. 11 Me. 338.
N. J.-Mahan V. Walker, (Sup.) | 145.

N. H.-Nadeau v. Sawyer, 73 N. H. 114 A 246. 70. 59 A 369.

N. Y.-Brennan v Richardson, 38 App. Div. 463, 56 NYS 428; Gautier v. Lange, 89 Misc. 372, 151 NYS 902;

Mo.-Schaabs v. Woodburn Sarven Wheel Co., 56 Mo. 173; Burns v. Polar Wave Ice, etc., Co., (A.) 187 SW

N. Y.-Cadwell v. Arnheim. 152 N.
N. Y.-Hill V. Moebus, 56 App. Y. 182, 46 NE 310 [rev 81 Hun 39,
Div. 354, 67 NYS 756; Ferguson v.
Ehret, 14 Misc. 454, 35 NYS 1020;
Bush v. Murphy, 85 NYS 361.

30 NYS 573]; Barrett v. Smith, 3 Silv. A. 520. 28 NE 23 [rev 59 N. Y. Super. 250, 14 NYS 307]; Burn

one has a right to expect such care to be exercised by others and to rely upon this in determining his own manner of using the road. Nevertheless the right to rely on the other's due care must be exercised within reasonable limits; and where two persons are driving on lines that visibly intersect, the general obligation of ordinary care becomes for each a definite duty, and if, as they approach, their contiguity and movements suggest a probable or even possible collision, neither is entitled to act

ham v. Butler, 31 N. Y. 480; Kelsey v. Barney, 12 N. Y. 425.

[a] Ordinary care for plaintiff, whose cattle were being driven by his employees along a highway, meant the degree of care that an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would use under similar circumstances. Andrews v. Dougherty, (Conn.) 112 A 700.

11

on the assumption that the other will give way.'
The duty of drivers of vehicles not to drive reck-
lessly but to use due care to prevent injury to
others in the highway, and to avoid collisions," ex-
tends to bicyclists,10 and to persons operating mo-
tor vehicles, traction engines,12 or steam rollers.13
What constitutes due care depends upon the cir-
cumstances of each particular case 14 and is gen-
erally a question for the jury.15 It has been held
sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury,
v. Ivie, 124 N. C. | 41 LRANS 337, AnnCas1913A 829.
N. Y.-Burnham v. Butler, 31 N.
480; Nead v. Roscoe Lumber Co.,
54 App. Div. 621, 66 NYS 419.
Wash. Kimble v. Stackpole, 60
Wash. 35, 110 P 677, 35 LRANS 148.
[a] Degree of care varies with
character of vehicle and increase of
danger.-Simeone v. Lindsay, 22 Del.
224. 65 A 778.

N. C.-Crampton
591, 32 SE 968.
Okl.- -Abbott V. Dingus, 44 Okl. Y.
567, 145 P 365, 366 [quot Cyc].
Pa.-Lacy v. Winn, 4 Pa. Dist. 409.
R. I-Ribas v. Revere Rubber Co.,
37 R. I. 189, 91 A 58.
Tex.-McGee v. West, (Civ. A.) 57
SW 928.

N. Y.-Knapp v. Barrett, 216 N. Y. 226, 110 NE 428: Harris v. Uebelhoer, 75 N. Y. 169; Steele Drake Baking Co. v. H. C. & A. I. Piercy Contracting Co., 140 App. Div. 113, [b] Plaintiff's team standing still. 124 NYS 1107; Harpell v. Curtis, 1-Hamann v. Reinecke, 3 La. A. (OrE. D. Smith 78; Reens v. Mail, etc. leans) 245. Pub. Co., 10 Misc. 122, 30 NYS 913; Meeting: Anselment v. Daniell, 4 Misc. 114, 23 NYS 875; McManus v. Woolver-At cross roads see supra § 417. ton, 19 NYS 545 [aff 138 N. Y. 648, Overtaking and passing see supra 34 NE 513]. § 419.

Or.-Pinder v. Wickstrom, 80 Or. 118, 156 P 583.

Pa-Fow v. Adams Express Co., 68 Pa. Super. 345; Spangler v. Markley, 39 Pa. Super. 351.

Generally see supra § 415.

Turning across road see supra § 420.

67

[ocr errors]

v.

Vt.-Claflin v. Wilcox, 18 Vt. 605. [b] Blasting rocks on a public Wis.-Rood V. American Express [b] The driver of a vehicle sudhighway being a dangerous work, Co., 46 Wis. 639, 1 NW 190. denly confronted with danger, alit is the duty of persons using a [a] Acts constituting negligence. though arising from the fault of anhighway for such purposes to see -(1) The driver of a wheeled ve-other, must seek to avoid a collithat all travelers on the highway hicle drawn by two horses was neg-sion, but whether he has taken the within the danger line are duly ligent in relation to coasters coming proper course depends upon all the warned and removed before firing down the hill which he himself was circumstances of the case. Hagenah the blast. Mills v. Wilmington City ascending, if, notwithstanding his de- v. Bidwell, (Cal. A.) 189 P 799. R. Co., 15 Del. 269, 40 A 1114. nials, he heard and understood warn- Care and negligence generally see 5. Ind.-Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. ing signals, or, as a reasonably pru-Negligence [29 Cyc 4281. Hoffman, 40 Ind. A. 508, 82 NE 543.dent and intelligent person, should 15. See cases infra this note. Mass. Crimmins V. Armstrong have known and recognized the dan- [a] Negligence of driver in colliTransfer Express Co., 217 Mass. 155, ger of the coasters' approach, and ston.-Hagenah v. Bidwell, (Cal. A.) 104 NE 457; Rogers v. Phillips, 206 avoided it. Roennau v. Whitson, 188 189 P 799; Park v. O'Brien, 23 Conn. Mass. 308, 92 NE 327, 28 LRANS 944. Iowa 138, 175 NW 849. (2) Leaving 339; Blakeslee's Express, etc., Co. v. Mich. Daniels v. Clegg, 28 Mich. a buggy standing at an angle to the Ford, 215 Ill. 230, 74 NE 135; Wad32. beaten track, and so near that by ley v. Schwartz Bros. Express Co., backing one foot it would be in the 211 Ill. A. 44; Roennau V. Whitway of passing vehicles, is negli- son, 188 Iowa 138, 175 NW 849; gence. Joslin v. Le Baron, 44 Mich. Strever v. Woodard, 178 Iowa 30, 160, 6 NW 214. 158 NW 504; Hubbard v. Bartholomew, 163 Iowa 58, 144 NW 13, 49 LRANS 443; Kleihauer Shedd, (Iowa) 102 NW 497; Lee v. Foley, 113 La. 663, 37 S 594; Neal v. Rendall, 98 Me. 69, 56 A 209, 63 LRA 688; Standard Oil Co. v. Hartman, 102 Md. 563, 62 A 805; Vonderhorst Brewing Co. v. Amrhine. 98 Md. 406, 56 A 833; Chandler v. Matheson Co., 208 Mass. 569, 95 NE 103; Rogers v. Phillips, 206 Mass. 308, 92 NE 327, 28 LRANS 944; Perlstein v. American Express Co., 177 Mass. 530, 59 NE 194, 52 LRA 959; Rand v. Syms, 162 Mass. 163, 38 NE 196 (question whether defendant should have looked behind); Reynolds v. Hanrahan, 100 Mass. 313; Hill v. Lappley, 199 Mich. 369, 165 NW 657; Buxton v. Ainsworth, 153 Mich. 315. 116 NW 1094: Prieur v. E. H. Stafford Co., 126 Mich. 169, 85 NW 469; Silsby v. Michigan Car Co., 95 Mich. 204, 54 NW 761; Le Baron v. Joslin, 41 Mich. 313, 2 NW 36, 44 Mich. 160, 6 NW 214; Notaro v. Mandel, 138 Minn. 422, 165 NW 267; Kayse v. Randle, (Miss.) 35 S 422; Hackett V. Alamito Sanitary Dairy Co., 90 Nebr. v.200, 133 NW 227, 41 LRANS 337. Ann Cas1913A 829; Johnson v. Duncan. 98 App. Div. 322, 90 NYS 660; Powles V. Halstead, 93 App. Div. 549. 87 NYS 928; McGahie v. McClennen, 86 App. Div. 263, 83 NYS 692: Cohn v. Palmer, 78 App. Div. 506, 79 NYS 762; Hurley v. New York, etc.. Brewing Co., 13 App. Div. 167, 43 NYS 259: Crozier v. Read, 78 Hun 181, 28 NYS 914, 10 App. Div. 627, 41 NYS 1110; Ferguson v. Ehret, 10 Misc. 217, 30 NYS 1063; Nevins v. Delaware, etc.. Co., 261 Pa. 32, 103 A 1017; Rauch v. Smedley, 208 Pa. 175, Del. Campbell v. Walker, 25 Del. 57 A 359; Wolf v. Hemrich Bros. 41, 78 A 601; Simeone v. Lindsay, 22 Brewing Co., 28 Wash. 187, 68 P 440; Del. 224, 65 A 778; Ford v. White-Christl v. Hauert. 164 Wis. 624, 160 man, 18 Del. 355, 45 A 543.

Wis.-Schaefer V. Osterbrink, 67 Wis. 495, 30 NW 922, 58 AmR 875. Reliance on observance of law of the road see supra § 415.

6. Campbell v. Chicago City R. Co., 212 11. A. 344; Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Hoffman, 40 Ind. A. 508, 82 NE 543; Crimmins V. Armstrong | Transfer Express Co., 217 Mass. 155, 104 NE 457.

7. Campbell v. Chicago City R. Co., 212 Ill. A. 344.

10. Conn.-Peltier v. Bradley,
Conn. 42. 34 A 712, 32 LRA 651.
Ill-North Chicago St. R. Co. v.
Cossar, 203 Ill. 608, 68 NE 88.
Iowa.-Cook v. Fogarty, 103 Iowa
500, 72 NW 677, 39 LRA 488.
Mich. Myers v. Hinds, 110 Mich.
300, 68 NW 156, 64 AmSR 345, 33
LRA 356.

Mo.-Lee v. Jones, 181 Mo. 291, 79
SW 927, 103 AmSR 596.

N. Y.-Shortsleeve v. Stebbins, 77
App. Div. 588, 79 NYS 40.
Pa. -
Hershinger v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 25 Pa. Super. 147.

R. L-Pick v. Thurston, 25 R. I.

8. Currie v. Consolidated R. Co., 81 Conn. 383. 71 A 356; Boyle v. Mc-36, 54 A 600. Williams, 69 Conn. 201, 37 A 501; [a] Facts held not to show negDaly v. Case, 88 N. J. L. 295, 95 Aligence.-Lee v. Jones, 181 Mo. 291, 973 [cit Cyc]; Barker v. Savage, 45 79 SW 927. 103 AmSR 596; Pick N. Y. 191, 6 AmR 66 [rev 31 N. Y. Thurston, 25 R. I. 36, 54 A 600. Super. 288]; Burnham v. Butler, 31 N. Y. 480; Smith v. Smith, 50 N. Y. Super. 503; Abbott v. Dingus, 44 Okl. 567, 145 P 365, 366 [quot Cyc].

11. See Motor Vehicles [28 Cyc 27, 37].

12. Miller v. Addison, 96 Md. 731, 54 A 967; Macomber v. Nichols, 34

9. Ill.-Ford V. Hine Bros. Co., Mich. 212, 22 AmR 522. 115 Ill. A. 153.

Iowa.-Roennau V. Whitson, 188 Iowa 138, 175 NW 849.

La.-Hamann v. Reinecke, 3 La. A. (Orleans) 245.

Frightening animals see infra
§ 425.

13. Kelley v. New York State R.
Co., 207 N. Y. 342, 100 NE 1115.
14. Ala.-Carter v. Chambers, 79

Md. Standard Oil Co. v. Hartman, Ala 223. 102 Md. 563, 62 A 805.

Mass.-Lane V. Bryant, 9 Gray 245, 69 AmD 282.

Mich. Joslin v. Grand Rapids Ice, etc., Co., 53 Mich. 322, 19 NW 17; Bradford v. Ball, 38 Mich. 673.

Nebr.-Hackett V. Alamito Sanitary Dairy Co.. 90 Nebr. 200, 133 NW 227, 41 LRANS 337, AnnCas1913 A 829.

N. Y.-Crabtree V. Otterson, 22 App. Div. 393, 47 NYS 977; MasonSeaman Transp. Co. v. Wineburgh, 72 Misc. 398, 130 NYS 178.

Cal-Hagenah v. Bidwell, (A.) 189

P 799.

Me.--Towle v. Morse, 103 Me. 250, 68 A 1044.

Mass. -Chandler v. Matheson Co., 208 Mass. 569, 95 NE 103.

[ocr errors]

NW 1061; Muehlbauer V. Klokner, 161 Wis. 410, 154 NW 624; Morgan V. Pleshek, 120 Wis. 306, 97 NW 916.

[b] Negligence of bicyclist.-PelMo.-Quirk v. St. Louis United El. tier v. Bradley, etc., Co., 67 Conn. Co., 126 Mo. 279, 28 SW 1080. 42, 34 A 712, 32 LRA 651; ShortNebr.-Hackett v. Alamito Sanitary sleeve v. Stebbins, 77 App. Div. 588, Dairy Co., 90 Nebr. 200, 133 NW 227,79 NYS 40 (frightening horse).

« AnteriorContinuar »