24

that the driver pulled on the wrong rein;16 that he failed to place a brake on a heavy wagon;17 or to chain wheels in going down a hill as was customary; 18 or to block a wagon stopped on a hill;19 and that he drove quickly over a car track with an overloaded wagon from which an article was liable to fall.20 A driver is in general negligent if he fails to have a proper equipment,21 as where he violates a statute requiring lights on vehicles.22 But he is not bound to furnish appliances which will render an accident impossible or to use the highest degree of care to make it safe, but only such care as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances.23 The breaking of the harness or vehicle does not necessarily show negligence,2 nor does it raise any presumption of negligence, 25 although there is authority to the contrary.2 Actions have been sustained on the ground that one allowed a long chain to hang behind a wagon, on which a horse tripped;27 that one backed his vehicle up against the sidewalk so as to knock down a structure thereon;28 that one ran down a boy on a hand sled attached to a wagon.2 A driver is not required to have a horse absolutely sound and free from defects, but only to use ordinary care in this respect.30 Where one driving at a moderate pace is confronted by a dog, he is not bound to stop or turn aside, but may assume that the dog will get out of the way.31 Leading horses Injuries by or to automobiles see | St. 212, 8 AmR 55. Motor Vehicles [28 Cyc 48].

26

16. Wakeman v. Robinson, 1 Bing. 213, 8 ECL 478, 130 Reprint 86.

17. Hurley V. New York, etc., Brewing Co., 13 App. Div. 167, 43 NYS 259.

18. Aldrich v. Monroe, 60 N. 118.

H. 19. Newcomb v. Van Zile, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 275; Springett v. Ball, 4 F. & F. 472.

20. Ledig V. Germania Brewing Co., 153 Pa. 298, 25 A 870.

21. Abbott v. Dingus, 44 Okl. 567, | 145 P 365, 366 [quot Cyc]; Welsh V. Lawrence, 2 Chit. 262, 18 ECL 624; Cotterill v. Starkey, 8 C. & P. 691, 34 ECL 965.

22. Gargan v. Harris, 90 Conn. 188, 96 A 940.

Contributory negligence see infra

§ 429.

23. Unger V. Forty-second St., etc., R. Co., 51 N. Y. 497 [aff 29 N. Y. Surer. 2371; Rattagliata v. Hubbell, 7 Misc. 103, 27 NYS 409 (brakes and curb bits). V. Forty-second St., etc, R. Co., 51 N. Y. 497. 25. Gottwald V. Bernheimer, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 212; Doyle v. Wragg, 1 F. & F. 7.

24. Unger

26. Templeman v. Haydon, 12 C. B. 507, 74 ECL 507, 138 Reprint 1005. 27. Bueck v. Lindsay, 65 Mich. 105, 31 NW 768.

28. Wolff Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 152 Ill. 9, 38 NE 694, 26 LRA 229. 29. Post v. Olmsted, 47 Nebr. 893, 66 NW 828.

30. Young v. Cowden, 98 Tenn. 577, 40 SW 1088 (fact that horse had shied once or twice in a number of years does not necessarily show negligence).

31. Clement V. Adams Express Co.. 43 Pa. Super. 25.

[a] "To drive to the right or left serves no useful purpose as the dog can change his position more quickly than can the horse." Clement v. Adams Express Co., 43 Pa. Super. 25, 28.

32. Crozier v. Read, 10 App. Div. 626, 41 NYS 1110. 78 Hun 181, 28 NYS 914: Grinnell v. Taylor. 85 Hun 85, 32 NYS 684 [aff 155 N. Y. 653, 49 NE 1097]; Pickens v. Diecker, 21 Oh. [29 C. J.-42]

29

33. Fitzsimmons Ill. A. 70.

33

35

in the highway may be done in such a negligent
manner as to render the owner liable for acci-
dents.32
But it is not negligence per se to drive
domestic animals unhaltered upon the highway.3
There is no liability for the effects of an unavoid-
able accident,34
34 and plaintiff can recover when,3
and only when,3 36 defendant's wrongful act or negli-
gence is the proximate cause of the injury. Respon-
sibility for an accident on the highway falls on
the person whose negligence caused it,37 and all per-
sons engaged in it are jointly liable.38 A person
is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence
of his wife,39 or son,40 in the absence of evidence
that the wife or son was acting under his direc-
tion or with his knowledge or consent. A town is
ordinarily not liable for the manner of use of a
way by travelers.41 The owner of a horse and vehi-
cle injured on a highway by the negligence of
another may recover damages therefor, regardless
of the person in charge of the property at the
time.42

v. Snyder, 181

34. Hester v. Hall, 17 Ala. A. 25, 81 S 361; Lemmon v. Broadwater. 30 Del. 472, 108 A 273; Center v. Finney, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 94; Miller v. Cohen, 173 Pa. 488, 34 A 219.

[a] Vehicle sliding down hill.-
Newcomb v. Van Zile, 34 Hun (N. Y.)
275.
35. Iowa. Roennau v. Whitson,
188 Iowa 138, 175 NW 849.
Mass.-McDonald v. Snelling, 14
Allen 290, 92 AmD 768.
Minn.-Griggs v. Fleckenstein, 14
Minn. 81, 100 AmD 199.

N. J.-Marshall v. Suburban Dairy
Co., 114 A 750.

21 A 739, 23 AmSR 761.

Frightening horses see infra § 425. 37. Camp v. Rogers, 44 Conn. 291; Coursen v. Ely, 37 Ill. 338; Foster v. Goddard, 40 Me. 64.

38. Vosburgh V. Moak, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 453, 48 AmD 613; Burnham v. Butler, 31 N. Y. 480.

39. Ricci v. Mueller, 41 Mich. 214, 2 NW 23.

40. Brohl v. Lingeman, 41 Mich. 711, 3 NW 199.

41.

Davis v. Bangor, 42 Me. 522; Ray v. Manchester, 46 N. H. 59, 88 AmD 192.

42. Mullins 593, 88 S 831. 43. Liability for injuries by automobiles see Motor Vehicles [28 Cyc 28].

v. Lemley, 205 Ala.

45. Ariz.-Stanfield v. Anderson, 43 P 221.

N. Y.-Engelbach v. Ibert, 10 Misc. 535, 31 NYS 438. 44. Belton v. Baxter, 54 N. Y. 245, Tex. Houston Transfer Co. v. 13 AmR 578, 14 AbbPrNS 404; BarRenard, (Civ. A.) 79 SW 838. ker v. Savage, 45 N. Y. 191, 6 AmR N. S.-Bundy v. Carter, 21 N. S. 66; Seaman v. Mott, 127 App. Div. 18, 296 (where defendant's wrongful 110 NYS 1040; Savage v. Gerstner, displacing of plaintiff in a line of 36 App. Div. 220, 55 NYS 306; Reens vehicles was held the proximate v. Mail, etc., Pub. Co., 10 Misc. 122, cause of injuries occurring in plain- 30 NYS 913 [aff 150 N. Y. 582, 44 tiff's struggle to recover his place). NE 1128]. [a] Illustration.-If the driver of a carriage going up a hill received timely warning of the approach of coasters from watchers at the foot of the hill, or saw or heard that which should have led a man of ordinary prudence to turn aside sufficiently to prevent a collision, but did not do so, he was negligent, and a coaster injured can recover from him although the coaster herself was originally negligent in attempting the ride. Roennau v. Whitson, 188 Iowa 138, 175 NW 849.

332.

Cal.-Raymond V. Hill, 168 Cal.
473, 143 P 743.
Me.-Coombs v. Purrington, 42 Me.
Mass. Kendall v. Kendall, 147
Mass. 482, 18 NE 233; Raymond v.
Lowell, 6 Cush. 524, 53 AmD 57.
Minn. Collins v. Dodge, 37 Minn.
503. 35 NW 368.

Mo.-Henry v. Grand Ave. R. Co., 113 Mo. 525, 21 SW 214.

N. Y.-McManus v. Woolverton, 19

Runaways and horses left un- NYS 545 [aff 138 N. Y. 648. 34 NE hitched see infra §§ 426-428.

36. Ill.-North Chicago St. R. Co.
v. Cossar, 203 Ill. 608, 68 NE 88.
Me. Smith v. French, 83 Me. 108,
21 A 739. 23 AmSR 761.

Mo.-Haller v. St. Louis, 176 Mo.
606. 75 SW 613.

N. Y. Berman V. Schultz,
NYS 292.

Ont.-Flett v. Coulter, 5 Ont.
375, 2 OntWR 142.

84

L.

513]; Wiel v. Wright, 8 NYS 776. Pa.-Warruna v. Dick, 261 Pa. 602, 104 A 749.

Porto Rico.-Peo. v. Blandford, 23 Porto Rico 580.

Eng.-Boss v. Litton, 5 C. & P. 407, 24 ECL 628.

46. See infra § 423.

47. U. S.-Garside v. New York Transp. Co., 146 Fed. 588 [mod on other grounds 157 Fed. 521, 85 CCA 285].

Ark. Cooper v. Kelly, 131 Ark. 6, 199 SW 94.

Cal.Raymond v. Hill, 168 Cal.

upon the presumption that the driver will exercise
such care
48 and that the law of the road will be
observed.49 So drivers and riders must exercise
due care to avoid injury to children,50 or persons
working in the highway.51 As a general rule one
is bound to look where he is going,52 and is negli-
gent if he suddenly starts his horse without look-
ing,53 although it has been held that the driver of
a coach who at the time of a collision with a
pedestrian on a dark night, was looking around to
speak to the conductor, was not negligent.54 But a
driver is not, it seems, under any duty of looking
out for persons approaching a vehicle from the
rear or the sides thereof, to prevent their falling
under the wheels, 55 although he may be liable in
case one nearby is injured by the fall of an article

Del. Simeone v. Lindsay, 22 Del. 224, 65 A 778.

from the vehicle.56 Nor is it the driver's duty to keep a lookout behind to see whether persons are riding on the rear of the vehicle.57 A pedestrian must exercise ordinary or reasonable care, in proportion to the danger, to avoid accidents,58 and contributory negligence on his part,59 or on the part of a person working on the highway,60 will bar a recovery, if the proximate cause of the injury. But a laborer is not bound to neglect his occupation in order to avoid injury from the want of ordinary care on the part of drivers of vehicles.61 Nor is

a pedestrian as a matter of law required to look back for approaching vehicles,62 although he might be bound so to do in the case of a crowded city street,63 and the circumstances of his being in the street might render this necessary, as when he

473, 143 P 743; Sykes v. Lawlor, 49 | Myers v. Hinds, 110 Mich. 300, 68
Cal. 236.
NW 156, 64 AmSR 345, 33 LRA 356.
[c]
Driver held not negligent.-
Flood V. Keeley Brewing Co., 175
Ill. A. 441; McNamara v. Beck, 21
Ind. A. 483, 52 NE 707 (two-year-old
child not seen by driver); White v.
Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 195 Mo. A.
19310, 191 SW 1122; Osterheldt
Peoples, 208 Pa. 310, 57 A 703; Young
v. Omnibus Co. Gen., 180 Pa. 75, 36
A 403 (where plaintiff skating fell
against horses whose driver was
looking the other way).

Ill. Heldmaier v. Taman, 88 Ill.
A. 209 [aff 188 Ill. 283. 58 NE 960].
Ind.-Evans v. Adams Express Co.,
122 Ind. 362, 23 NE 1039, 7 LRA 678;
Stringer v. Frost, 116 Ind. 477,
NE 331, 9 AmSR 875, 2 LRA 614; Ap-
person v. Lazro, 44 Ind. A. 186, 87
NE 97, 88 NE 99.

Iowa. Cook v. Fogarty, 103 Iowa
500, 72 NW 677, 39 LRA 488.
Me.-Bigelow v. Reed, 51 Me. 325.
Mich.-Shock v. Cooling, 175 Mich.
313, 141 NW 675.

Mo.-Lee v. Jones, 181 Mo. 291, 79 SW 927, 103 AmSR 596; Quirk v. St. Louis United El. Co., 126 Mo. 279, 28 SW 1080; Vaughn v. Scade, 30 Mo. 600; Dieter v. Zbaren, 81 Mo. A. 612; O'Hara v. Globe Iron, etc., Co., 66 Mo. A. 53.

V.

Knickerbocker

V.

48. Crimmins V. Armstrong
Transp. Express Co., 217 Mass. 155,
104 NE 457; Moody v. Osgood, 54
N. Y. 488 [aff 60 Barb. 644].
49.

Foster v. Curtis, 213 Mass. 79,
99 NE 961. 42 LRANS 1188, AnnCas
1913E 1116.

54. Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B. N. S. 568, 98 ECL 568, 141 Reprint 1288.

55. Rice V. Buffalo Steel House Co., 17 App. Div. 462, 45 NYS 277; Henderson v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.. 1 Silv. Sup. 487, 5 NYS 909 [aff 119 N. Y. 619 mem, 23 NE 1143 mem]; Young v. Omnibus Com. Gen., 180 Pa. 75, 36 A 403.

56. Cook v. Piper, 79 III. A. 291; Ledig v. Germania Brewing Co., 153 Pa. 298, 25 A 870.

57. Hebard V. Mabie, 98 Ill. A. 543; Chicago Cons. Bottling Co. v. McGinnis, 51 Ill. A. 325 (drivers of wagons are not required. before starting their wagons after a temporary stop, to look to see if children have got on the wagon).

58. Cecchi v. Lindsay, 24 Del. 185, 75 A 376; Chatel v. Schonland, 75 N. 50. Cal. Wikberg V. Olson Co., H. 543, 78 A 128, 139 AmSR 739; 138 Cal. 479, 71 P 511; Skinner v. Knapp v. Barrett, 216 N. Y. 226, 110 Knickrehm. 10 Cal. A. 596, 102 P 947. NE 428; Seitz v. Ott, (Wis.) 182 NW Ill.-Heldmaier v. Taman, 188 Ill. [a] Facts held to show due care. 283, 58 NE 960 [aff 88 11. A. 209];-Chatel v. Schonland, 75 N. H. 543, Casey v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.. 185 78 A 128, 139 AmSR 739; Seitz v. Ill. A. 339. Ott, (Wis.) 182 NW 333.

N. Y. Birkett V. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 110 N. Y. 504, 18 NE 108; Scotti v. Behsmann, 81 Hun 604, 30 NYS 990; Rottenberg v. Segelke, 6 Misc. 3, 25 NYS 997; Elze v. Baumann, 2 Misc. 72. 21 NYS 782; Thies v. Thomas, 77 NYS 276.

N. Y.-Birkett Ice Co., 110 N. Y. 504, 18 NE 108 [aff 41 Hun 404, 3 NYSt 133]; Moebus v. Herrmann, 108 N. Y. 349, 15 NE 415, 2 AmSR 440 [aff 38 Hun 370]; Ind. McNamara v. Beck, 21 Ind. Murphy v. Orr, 96 N. Y. 14; Barker A. 483, 52 NE 707. v. Savage, 45 N. Y. 191, 6 AmR 66; Ky. Wathen v. Pool, 80 SW 439, Phelps v. Wait, 30 N. Y. 78; Sea-25 KyL 2294. man v. Mott, 127 App. Div. 18, 110 NYS 1040; Hickman v. Schimper, 125 App. Div. 216, 109 NYS 325; Young v. Herrmann, 119 App. Div. 445, 104 NYS 72; Schaffer v. Baker Transfer Co., 29 App. Div. 459, 51 NYS 1092; Murphy v. Weidmann Cooperage, 1 App. Div. 283, 37 NYS 151; Reens v. Mail, etc., Pub. Co., 10 Misc. 122, 30 NYS 913 [aff 150 N. Y. 582 mem, 44 NE 1128 mem]; Van Houten v. Fleischmann, 1 Misc. 130, 20 NYS 643; McManus v. Woolverton, 19 NYS 545 [aff 138 N. Y. 648 mem, 34 NE 513 mem].

Pa. Streitfeld v. Shoemaker. 185 Pa. 265, 39 A 967; Kleinert v. Rees, 6 Pa. Super. 594.

R. I.-Nelson v. Braman, 22 R. 1. 283, 47 A 696; Bennett v. Lovell, 12 R. I. 166, 34 AmR 628.

Pa.--Brown v. Schellenberg, 19 Pa.
Super. 286.

Philippine.-U. S. v. Clemente, 24
Philippine 178.

Vt.-Robinson v. Cone, 22 Vt. 213,
54 AmD 67.

[a] Driver held not negligent.McNamara v. Beck, 21 Ind. A. 483, 52 NE 707.

Contributory negligence of child see infra § 429; and generally Negligence [29 Cyc 535].

51. Del.--Ford V. Whiteman, 18 Del. 355, 45 A 543.

Mass.-Quirk v. Holt, 99 Mass. 164,

Vt. Trow v. Thomas, 70 Vt. 580, 41 A 652; Thompson v. National Ex-96 AmD 725. press Co., 66 Vt. 358, 29 A 311.

Wash.-Stephenson v. Parton, 89 42. Wash. 653, 155 P 147.

Eng. Cotterill v. Starkey, 8 C. & P. 691, 34 ECL 965; Smith v. Brownie, L. R. 28 Ir. 1.

N. H.-Riley v. Farnum, 62 N. H.

N. Y.-Norton v. Webber, 69 App. Div. 130, 74 NYS 524 [aff 174 N. Y. 514, 66 NE 11121; Campbell v. Wood, 22 App. Div. 599, 48 NYS 46; Smith v. Bailey, 14 App. Div. 283, 43 NYS 856; Anselment V. Daniell, 4 Misc. 144. 23 NYS 875.

[a] Acts constituting negligence. -(1) It is negligence for the driver of a vehicle having ample space to pass a pedestrian on a highway to guide Wash.-Jones v. Swift, 30 Wash. the vehicle so as to strike the pedes-462, 70 P 1109. trian in passing. Schock v. Cooling, 52. Sutter v. Omnibus Cable Co., 175 Mich. 313, 141 NW 675. (2) It 107 Cal. 369. 40 P 484; Phelps v. is negligence to run recklessly upon Wait. 30 N. Y. 78; Elze v. Baumann, a pedestrian who is standing or 2 Misc. 72. 21 NYS 782; McCloskey walking with his back toward the v. Chautauqua Lake Ice Co., 174 Pa. driver. Raymond v. Hill, 168 Cal. 34. 34 A 287.

59. Del.-Simeone v. Lindsay, 22 Del. 224, 65 A 778.

Ind. Evans v. Adams Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 NE 1039, 7 LRA 678. Mich. Joslin v. Le Baron, 44 Mich. 160, 6 NW 214.

N. Y.-Moebus v. Herrmann, 108 N. Y. 349, 15 NE 415, 2 AmSR 440.

Pa. Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Pa. 439. [a] Heedlessly standing in the street is negligence. Evans v. Adams Express Co., 122 Ind. 362. 23 NE 1039, 7 LRA 678; Joslin v. Le Baron, 44 Mich. 160, 6 NW 214; Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Pa. 439.

Contributory negligence generally see infra § 429.

60. Campbell v. Wood. 22 App. Div. 599. 48 NYS 46: Lyons v. Avis, 5 App. Div 193, 38 NYS 1104; Jones v. Swift, 30 Wash. 462, 70 P 1109.

[a] Lamp cleaner with back to teams held negligent. Campbell v. Wood, 22 App. Div. 599, 48 NYS 46.

61. Smith v. Bailey, 14 App. Div. 283, 43 NYS 856; Anselment V. Daniell, 4 Misc. 144, 23 NYS 875.

62. Cal.- Raymond v. Hill, 168 Cal. 473, 143 P 743.

Conn.Church v. Spicer, 85 Conn. 579, 83 A 1115.

Minn. Undhejem v. Hastings, 38 Minn. 485, 38 NW 488.

N. Y.-Wiel v. Wright, 8 NYS 776. Pa.-Petrie v. E. A. Myers Co., 112 A 240.

Porto Rico-Peo. v. Blandford, 23 Porto Rico 580, 581 [cit Cyc].

[a] Thus a pedestrian walking along the extreme right-hand edge of paved roadway, having rights equal with those of the users of motor or horse-drawn vehicles, could safely assume that he would not be struck from the rear by any such veOttendorff v. Willis, 80 Hun (N. Y.)hicles. Petrie v. E. A. Myers Co., 262, 30 NYS 168 [aff 154 N. Y. 753 mem, 49 NE 1101 mem]; Thompson v. National Express Co., 66 Vt. 358,

473, 143 P 743; Stephenson v. Parton, 53. Phelps v. Wait, 30 N. Y. 78; 89 Wash. 653. 155 P 147.

[b] Liability of bicyclists.-North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cossar, 203 Ill. 608. 68 NE 88; Cook v. Fogarty, 103 Iowa 500, 72 NW 677, 39 LRA 488; 29 A 311.

(Pa.) 112 A 240.

63. Undhejem V. Hastings, 38 Minn. 485. 38 NW 488. And see Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 914].

§§ 422-423]

66

65. See cases infra note 70 [b]. 66. Peete v. Jackson, 4 Tenn. Civ. A. 678.

Cal. Wolfskill v. Los Angeles R. Co., 129 Cal. 114, 61 P 775; Crowley v. Strouse, 33 P 456.

HIGHWAYS

68

Whether the driver of a vehicle was negligent in causing injuries to a person on foot is ordinarily a question for the jury,69 as is the question of contributory negligence on the part of the person injured.70

Crossing
Pedestrians

Mo.-Groom v. Kavanagh, 97 Mo. A. 362, 71 SW 362.

V.

alights from a vehicle in front of a moving horse or team.64 But even in such case the question is generally for the determination of the jury.65 It is negligence to go upon the highway with a wild Highway. or unruly animal not harnessed with reasonable se[423] b. curity, or to place the animal in charge of a driver Neither foot passengers nor vehicles have a prior who does not exercise reasonable care to control right of way at a highway crossing, they having the him.67 It is not necessary, however, in order to right in common, in the exercise of which they are render the owner liable for injuries to others that bound to use reasonable care. Upon arriving at his horse be of a vicious nature, provided he fails a crossing a driver is bound to notice foot passenMich.-Graham v. Evening Press 697: to take proper precautions to prevent accidents." NW Co., 135 Mich. 298, 97 137 Ottendorff v. Willis, 80 Hun 262, 30 V. Dennie, 64. Messenger Mass. 197, 50 AmR 295 (where a boy NYS 168 [aff 154 N. Y. 753 mem, 49 779; Lazell v. Kapp, 83 Mich. 36, 46 who suddenly left a moving sleigh, NE 1101 mem]; Moskovitz v. Lighte, Stroub v. Meyer, 132 Mich. 75, 92 NW on the runners of which he was rid-68 Hun 102, 22 NYS 732; Atkinson ing, in a frequented thoroughfare, v. Oelsner, 57 Hun 592, 10 NYS 822; NW 1028. see what Edsall v. Vandemark, 39 Barb. 589; without looking back to N. H.-Bresnehan v. Gove, 71 N. v. O'Keefe, 22 vehicle might be following, was held Cowan v. Snyder, 1 Silv. Sup. 396, 5 NYS 340; Williams to be negligent). N. Y. Super. 536, 24 How Pr 16; Mal- H. 236, 51 A 916. N. Y.-McManus v. Woolverton, 138 lard v. Ninth Ave. R. Co., 15 Daly 376, 7 NYS 666; Kayser v. New York N. Y. 648, 34 NE 513 [aff 19 NYS (failure to estimate sweep of planks 67. Peete v. Jackson, 4 Tenn. Civ. Mail Co., 75 Misc. 474, 133 NYS 440;545]; Sheehy v. Burger, 62 N. Y. 558 Cherbuliez v. Parsons, 59 Misc. 613, v. Baumann, 2 dragging); Belton v. Baxter, 58 N. A. 678. Y. 411; Brooks v. Schwerin, 54 N. Y. Moulton V. Aldrich, 28 Kan. 111 NYS 516; Elze 68. v. Bell, 119 App. Div. v. 343; Griffin 90 NYS 449: Cowan 300; Dickson v. McCoy, 39 N. Y. 400; Misc. 72, 21 NYS 782; Schwartz v. Assoc., 73 App. Wasmuth v. Butler, 86 Hun (N. Y.) London, Sun Printing, etc., 1, 33 NYS 108; Grinnell v. Taylor, Snyder, 1 Silv. Sup. 396, 5 NYS 340; 673, 104 NYS 295; Connaughton v. Div. 316, 76 NYS 755; Kelly v. Adel85 Hun 85, 32 NYS 684 [aff 155 N. Y. Levy v. Dry-Dock, etc., R. Co., 12 653 mem, 49 NE 1097 mem]; Peete v. NYS 485. Pa.-Edwards v. Gimbel, 187 Pa. mann, 72 App. Div. 590, 76 NYS 574; Jackson, 4 Tenn. Civ. A 678. Div. 621, 66 NYS 419; Schaffer v. Div. 69. U. S.- San Francisco Brew-78, 41 A 39; Streitfeld v. Shoemaker, Nead v. Roscoe Lumber Co., 54 App. 185 Pa. 265, 39 A 967; Schwartz v. Baker Transfer Co., 29 App. eries v. Brainard, 233 Fed. 45, 147 87 Hun 406, 34 48 Pa. 218, 86 AmD 459, 51 NYS 1092; O'Reilly v. Utah, CCA 115; Hoagland v. Canfield, 160 Brahm, 130 Pa. 411, 18 A 643; Smith v. O'Connor, Stage Co., Fed. 146. NYS 358; Welling v. Judge, 40 Barb. 582; Kleinert v. Rees, 6 Pa. Super. etc.. Anselment [a] 166; Thus it was held to be a ques-193; Deegan v. Čappel, 1 Silv. Sup. 6 NYS 594. 563, was NYS 875; heavily Daniell, 4 Misc. 144, 23 driving his negligent tion for the jury whether one beside Wiel v. Wright, 8 NYS 776. loaded wagon within six to twelve Schwartz v. London, 90 NYS 449; inches of plaintiff's wagon, Pa.--Streitfeld v. Shoemaker, 185 which plaintiff was standing with his back toward defendant's wagon, there Pa. 265, 39 A 967; Safian v. American National Vt. Thompson Boick v. Bisbeing plenty of space in which de- Ice Co., 66 Pa. Super. 419. fendant could pass. press Co., 66 Vt. 358, 29 A 311. Quin- Wash. Stephenson v. sell, 80 Mich. 260, 45 NW 55. [b] Injuries to children. livan v. Ready, etc., Coal Co., 202 Wash. 653, 155 P 147. Kan.-Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. Ill. A. 224; Kaufman v. Bush, 69 N. J. L. 645, 56 A 291; Rottenberg v. v. Duncan, 6 Kan. A. 178, 51 P 310. La. Douglas v. Faust, 112 La. Segelke, 148 N. Y. 734, 42 NE 725 [aff 6 Misc. 3, 25 NYS 997] (where he had 1050, 36 S 850. was ignorant that V. Farnsworth, 186 driver Mass.-Drew knocked down the children); MoskoMass. 365, 71 NE 783; Doherty v. Mass. 64 967; vitz v. Lighte, 140 N. Y. 619, 35 NE 182, NE 182 Rice, Murphy v. Armstrong Transf. Co., 167890 [aff 68 Hun 102, 22 NYS 732]; Barrett v. Smith, 128 N. Y. 607, 28 [b] Alighting from street car.Mass. 199, 45 NE 93; Schienfeldt v. NE 23 [rev 59 N. Y. Super. 250, 14 Norris, 115 Mass. 17. v. Evening Press NYS 307]; Birkett v. Knickerbocker (1) A passenger alighting from a Mich.-Graham Ice Co., 110 N. Y. 504, 18 NE 108; surface street car is not bound, as 697; NW Co., 135 298, Mich. Stroub V. Meyer, 132 Mich. 75, 92 Murphy v. Orr, 96 N. Y. 14; Deh- matter of law, to look in both direcmann v. Beck, 61 App. Div. 505, 70 tiens along the street before starting but curb, the question the NW 779; Burt v. Staffeld, 121 Mich. 390, 80 NW 236; Lazell v. Kapp, 83 NYS 29; Shoenblum v. New York, 58 to cross the space between the car whether the failure so to look conMich. 36. 46 NW 1028; Boick v. Bis- App. Div. 285, 68 NYS 1005; Press-and man v. Mooney, 5 App. Div. 121, 39 Silv. stituted negligence is one of fact, to v. Snyder, sell, 80 Mich. 260, 45 NW 55; Post v. be determined by the jury under all and circumstances conditions U. S. Express Co., 76 Mich. 574, 43 NYS 44; Cowan Sup. 396, 5 NYS 340; Birnbaum v. Garside v. NW 636. Lord, 7 Misc. 493, 28 NYS 17 [aff 6 the Misc. 535, 27 NYS 135]; Finkelstein shown by the evidence. v. Crane. 2 Misc. 545, 22 NYS 399; New York Transp. Co.. 146 Fed. 588 (2) A person was not because in negligent Elze v. Baumann, 2 Misc. 72, 21 NYS [mod on other grounds 157 Fed. 521, 782 (where horses swerved); McClos-85 CCA 285]. key v. Chautauqua Lake Ice Co., 174 necessarily Pa. 34, 34 A 287; Summers v. Berg- alighting from a street car he failed to look around to see whether a vener Brewing Co.. 143 Pa. 114, 22 A hicle following alongside the Sandifer v. hind part of the car. See generally 707. 24 AmSR 518. Lynn, 52 Mo. A. 553. 71. Ind. - Stringer v. Frost, 116 Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 914]. Ind. 477, 19 NE 331, 9 AmSR 875, 2 LRA 614.

Colo. Adams Express Co. v. Aldridge, 20 Colo. A. 74, 77 P 6. Conn.-Church v. Spicer, 85 Conn. 579, 83 A 1115. Ill.-Guinlivan v. Ready, etc., Coal Co., 202 Ill. A. 224.

Ind. McNamara v. Beck, 21 Ind. A. 483, 52 NE 707. Iowa.-Riepe v. Elting, 89 Iowa 82, 56 NW 285, 48 AmSR 356, 26 LRA 769.

97

66

LRA

Mo.-Dieter v. Zbaren, 81 Mo. A.
612; O'Hara v. Globe Iron, etc., Co.,
66 Mo. A. 53; Gulick v. Clarke, 51
Mo. A. 26; Meyer v. Lewis, 43 Mo.
A. 417.
Weber V. Lockman,
Nebr.
591, 60
NW
Nebr. 469, 92
313.
N. H.-Chatel v. Schonland, 75 N.
H. 543. 78 A 128, 139 AmSR 739;
Bresnehan v. Gove, 71 N. H. 236, 51
A 916; Riley v. Farnum, 62 N. H. 42.
N. J.-Kennedy v. Sullivan, 66 N.
J. L. 185, 48 A 535.

in

York
70. U. S.-Garside v. New
Transp. Co., 146 Fed. 588 [mod on
other grounds 157 Fed. 521, 85 CCA
285].

Cal-Wolfskill v. Los Angeles R.
Co., 129 Cal. 114, 61 P 775.
Conn.-Church v. Spicer, 85 Conn.
Ind.
V. Gaynor, 89
579, 83 A 1115.
Ind. Simons
165; Harker v. Gruhl, 62 Ind. A. 177,
111 NE 457.

Iowa.-Clay v. Iowa Tel. Co.,
Iowa 67. 159 NW 570.

178

Iowa.-Eaton v. Cripps, 94 Iowa 176, 62 NW 687.

Mo.-Jennings v. Schwab, 64 Mo.

A. 13.

N. Y.-Brooks v. Schwerin, 54 N. Y. 343; Belton v. Baxter, 54 N. Y. 245, 13 AmR 578 [rev 33 N. Y. Super. v. Savage, 45 N. Y. 182]; Barker

N. Y.-Norton v. Webber, 174 N. Y. 514, 66 NE 1112 [aff 69 App. Div. 130, 74 NYS 524]; Barrett v. Smith, 128 607. 28 N. Y. NE 23; Birkett v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 110 N. Y. 504, 18 NE 108 [aff 41 Hun 404, 3 NYS 133]; Seaman v. Mott, 127 App. Div. 18, 110 NYS 1040; Griffin v. Bell, 119 Md. Mears v. McElfish, 114 A 701; V. Woolverton, 19 App. Div. 673, 104 NYS 295; Con288]; McManus naughton v. Sun Printing, etc., As- Grabrues v. Klein, 81 Md. 83, 31 A191, 6 AmR 66 [rev 31 N. Y. Super. Murphy V. Armstrong NYS 545 [aff 138 N. Y. 648 mem, 34 Mass. soc., 73 App. Div. 316, 76 NYS 755; 504. Mass. 199, 45 NE NE 513 mem]. Nead v. Roscoe Lumber Co., 54 App. Transf. Co., 167 v. Kendall, 147 Mass. Div. 621, 66 NYS 419; Schaffer v. Baker Transf. Co., 29 App. Div. 459, 93; Kendall 51 NYS 1092; Pressman v. Mooney, 5482, 18 NE 233; Schienfeldt v. NorApp. Div. 121, 39 NYS 44; Keller v. ris, 115 Mass. 17; Lane v. Crombie, Haaker, 2 App. Div. 245, 37 NYS 792; 12 Pick. 177.

Belton v. Baxter, 58 77. Ga. Orr v. Garabold, 85 Ga. 373, 11 SE 778.

Ill.-Wadley v. Schwartz Bros. Express Co., 211 Ill. A. 44.

Ind.-Simons V. Gaynor, 89 Ind.

N. Y.-Moebus v. Herrmann, 108 N. Y. 349, 15 NE 415, 2 AmSR 440; Van Houten v. Fleischman, 1 Misc. 130, 20 NYS 643 [aff 142 N. Y. 624, 37 NE 565].

Eng. Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B. N. S. 568, 98 ECL 568, 141 Reprint 1288. [a] Where a pedestrian crossing diagonally at a highway intersection is injured by a team driven on the wrong side of the road at a lively gait, the driver is liable. Wadley v. Schwartz Bros. Express Co., 211 Ill. A. 44.

78. Ill.-Goldblatt v. Brocklebank, 166 Ill. A. 315.

Ind.-Evans v. Adams Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 NE 1039, 7 LRA 678; Stringer v. Frost, 116 Ind. 477, 19 NE 331, 9 AmSR 875, 2 LRA 614: Green v. Eden, 24 Ind. A. 583, 56 NE 240.

Iowa.-Eaton v. Cripps, 94 Iowa 176, 62 NW 687.

N. Y.-Moebus v. Herrmann, 108 N. Y. 349, 15 NE 415, 2 AmSR 440; Wendell v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 91 N. Y. 420; Barker v. Savage, 45 N. Y. 191, 6 AmR 66; Jessen v. J. L. Kesner Co., 159 App. Div. 898, 144 NYS 407 [aff 215 N. Y. 639 mem, 109 NE 1080 mem]; Reens v. Mail, etc., Pub. Co., 10 Misc. 122, 30 NYS 913 [aff 150 N. Y. 582 mem, 44 NE 1128 mem]; McManus v. Woolverton, 19 NYS 545 [aff 138 N. Y. 648 mem, 34 NE 513 mem].

Utah.-Hall v. Ogden City St. R. Co., 13 Utah 243, 44 P 1046, 57 AmSR 726.

79. Harris v. Commercial Ice Co., 153 Pa. 278, 25 A 1133.

80. Ga. Orr v. Garabold, 85 Ga. 373, 11 SE 778.

Ind. Harker v. Gruhl, 62 Ind. A. 177, 111 NE 457. Iowa.-Eaton v. Cripps, 94 Iowa [b] Plaintiff held negligent. 176, 62 NW 687. Weidemann Brewing Co. v. Parmlee, La.-Shea v. Reems, 36 La. Ann. 167 Ky. 303, 180 SW 350; Belton v. Baxter, 54 N. Y. 245, 13 AmR 578, Rogers V. Phillips. 206 14 AbbPrNS 404 (miscalculation Mass. 308, 92 NE 327, 28 LRANS where plaintiff's chances were close). 944; Purtell v. Jordan, 156 Mass. [c] Whether plaintiff should have 573, 31 NE 652; Shapleigh v. Wyman, 86. McManus V. Woolverton, 19 known the relative speed of two ve- 134 Mass. 118; Bowser v. Wellington, NYS 545 [aff 138 N. Y. 648 mem, 34 hicles approaching was a question 126 Mass. 391; Williams v. Grealy, NE 513 mem].

[424] 3. Reckless Driving or Racing.87 It has been held that driving or riding at a rapid speed in a highway is not necessarily negligence in fact or in law,ss but such speed is to be considered in determining the question of negligence. In other cases it is said or intimated that an immoderate or excessive rate of speed, especially at night,91 in itself constitutes negligence; and if the speed is such that the driver is unable properly to control the horse so as to avoid injury to others, a finding of negligence on his part is justified.92 Driving at a speed calculated to frighten other horses of ordinary gentleness upon the highway is likewise actionable, 93 and the urgent necessity of one's

errand will not excuse careless and reckless driving.9 94 The fact that one was riding or driving at a rate of speed greater than that prescribed by law is not, it is generally held, conclusive of negligence

on his part, but is merely evidence thereof, to be considered by the jury,95 although some authorities have treated this as itself showing negligence.96 Racing on the highway has been regarded as a ground of liability for injuries to one resulting therefrom,97 and when such use of the highway is illegal, both the persons whose teams participated therein are liable, although only one of them may have actually come in contact with the person injured." A statute forbidding racing on a highway has no application to coasting with a double runner.99

98

[§ 425] 4. Frightening Horses.1 A person frightening horses on a highway is not liable for injury resulting therefrom if he has been guilty of no wrong or negligence.2 But an action lies for negligently frightening horses, and so causing damage, the questions of negligence and contributory

3

375.

4

87. Automobiles see Motor Ve- P. 691, 34 ECL 965; Davies v. Mann, | 106 Pa. 95, 51 AmR 496; In re Upper hicles [28 Cyc 29]. 10 M. & W. 546, 152 Reprint 588, 19 Mahanoy Tp. Road, 2 Chest. Co. 88. Carter v. Chambers, 79 Ala. ERC 190. 223; Denman v. Johnston, 85 Mich. 93. Thomas V. Royster, 98 Ky. Tex.-Patton-Worsham Drug Co. v. 387, 48 NW 565; Crocker v. Knicker- 206, 32 SW 613, 17 KyL 783; Howe Drennon, 133 SW 871. bocker Ice Co., 92 N. Y. 652; Camp-v. Young, 16 Ind. 312; Payne V. [a] Illustrations. (1) Horse bell v. Wood, 22 App. Div. 599, 48 Smith, 4 Dana (Ky.) 497; Mittelstadt frightened by pony of diminutive NYS 46; Keck v. Sandford, 2 Misc. V. Morrison, 76 Wis. 265, 44 NW size and unusual color. Myers v. 484, 22 NYS 78; Brennan v. Friend-1103. Lape, 101 Ill. A. 182. (2) Horse ship, 67 Wis. 223, 29 NW 902. frightened by an elephant. Scribner v. Kelley, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 14. (3) Shouting directions in an endeavor to prevent an accident. Pigott v. Lilly, 55 Mich. 150, 20 NW $79.

89. Conn.-Currie v. Consolidated infra § 425. R. Co., 81 Conn. 383, 71 A 356.

Ind. Stringer v. Frost, 116 Ind. 477, 19 NE 331, 9 AmSR 875, 2 LRA 614.

Mich. -Denman V. Johnston, Mich. 387. 48 NW 565.

Pa.- - Kennedy

186.

85 N. Y.-Hurley v. New York, etc., Brewing Co., 13 App. Div. 167, 43 NYS 259. v. Way, Brightly Wis.-Brennan v. Friendship, 67 Wis. 223, 29 NW 902. [a] Evidence of the large amount of travel upon the particular road is admissible to show the impropriety of defendant's conduct in riding thereon at an immoderate rate of speed. Stringer v. Frost, 116 Ind. 477, 19 NE 331, 9 AmSR 875, 2 LRA 614.

Frightening horses generally see 94. Green v. Eden, 24 Ind. A. 583, 56 NE 240; Eaton v. Cripps, 94 Iowa 176, 62 NW 687. But see State v. Battery, 6 Baxt. (Tenn.) 545 (to run [b] Cattle driver who keeps cattle a horse along a public road to the carrying lights on right of road is inconvenience of people is a commonnot liable for injuries caused by law misdemeanor unless necessitated frightening a horse. Torres v. Rubby great danger to property or per-ert, 6 Porto Rico Fed. 701. son from sickness or otherwise).

3.

Ala. Rodgers v. Harper, 170

95. Ind. Simons v. Gaynor, 89 Ala. 647, 54 S 199.
Ind. 165.

Iowa. Osborn v. Jenkinson, 100
Iowa 432, 69 NW 548.

Mo.-O'Hara v. Globe Iron, etc.,
Co., 66 Mo. A. 53; Sandifer v. Lynn,
52 Mo. A. 553.

N. Y.-Knupfle V. Knickerbocker
Ice Co., 84 N. Y. 488; Schaffer v.
Baker Transf. Co., 29 App. Div. 459,
5 NYS 1092; Hanrahan v. Cochran.
12 App. Div. 91, 42 NYS 1031; Moody
v. Csgood, 60 Barb. 644 [aff 54 N. Y.
488]; Keck v. Sandford, 2 Misc. 484,
22 NYS 78.

Wis.-Mittelstadt v. Morrison. 76
Wis. 265, 44 NW 1103.

[b] Driving at night.-The speed at which any vehicle can be driven over a highway at night must be determined partly in view of the distance ahead at which travelers upon cr approaching the same highway 96. Robinson v. Simpson, 13 Del. would become visible. Currie v. Con-398, 32 A 287; Potter v. Moran, 61 solidated R. Co., 81 Conn. 383, 71 A Mich. €0, 27 NW 854; Foley V. 356. Northrup, 47 Tex. Civ. A. 277, 105 90. Ind. Stringer v. Frost, 116 SW 229. Ind. 477, 19 NE 331, 9 AmSR 875, 2 LRA 614.

Ky.-Payne v. Smith, 4 Dana 497.
Mich.-Post v. U. S. Express Co.,
76 Mich. 574, 43 NW 636.
Mo.-Schaabs v. Woodburn Sarven
Wheel Co., 56 Mo. 173; Urquhart v.
Boutell, 15 Mo. A. 592.

N. Y.-Lahne v. Seaich, 83 App.
Div. 636, 82 NYS 67.

Pa-Freel v. Wanamaker. 208 Pa. 279, 57 A 563; De Kyne v. Smith, 42 Pa. Super. 11.

Eng. Williams v. Richards, 3 C. & K. 81; Mayhew v. Sutton, 20 Cox C. C. 146.

91. Crampton v. Ivie, 124 N. C. 591, 32 SE 968 (one driving rapidly along a highway at night cannot confine his liability for negligence to his conduct after he discovered, or could reasonably have discovered, the danger). V. Whiteman, 18

92. Del.-Ford Del. 355, 45 A 543.

N. Y.-Canton v. Simpson, 2 App. Div. 561, 38 NYS 13; Kahn v. Eisler, 22 Misc. 350, 49 NYS 135; Northridge V. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 15 Misc. 66, 36 NYS 263.

Tenn.-Young v. Cowden, 98 Tenn.
577, 40 SW 1088.
Wis.-Mittelstadt v. Morrison, 76
Wis. 265, 44 NW 1103.

Eng. Cotterill v. Starkey, 8 C. &

Criminal liability for reckless driving see infra § 438.

97. Del.-Ford V. Whiteman, 18
Del. 355, 45 A 543.

Iowa. Osborn V. Jenkinson, 100
Iowa 432, 69 NW 548.

Mich.-Mahnke v. Freer, 126 Mich.
572, 85 NW 1099; Potter v. Moran,
61 Mich. 60. 27 NW 854.

N. Y.--Hanrahan v. Cochran, 12
App. Div. 91, 42 NYS 1031.

Wis.-Mittelstadt v. Morrison, 76
Wis. 265, 44 NW 1103.
Automobile racing upon public
highway see Motor Vehicles [28 Cyc
30].

Racing in highway as a crime see
infra § 438.

98. Burnham v. Butler, 31 N. Y. 480; Hanrahan v. Cochran, 12 App. Div. 91, 42 NYS 1031.

99. Roennau v. Whitson, 188 Iowa 138, 175 NW 849.

1. Automobiles see Motor Ve-
hicles [28 Cyc 30, 34].

2. Ill. Myers v. Lape, 101 Ill. A.
182.
Mo.-Hall v. Compton, 130 Mo. A.
675. 108 SW 1122.

Nebr.-Heist v. Jacoby, 71 Nebr.
395, 98 NW 1058.

N. Y.-Scribner v. Kelley, 38 Barb. 14.

Pa.-Keeley V. Shanley, 140 Pa. 213, 21 A 305; Piollett v. Simmers,

Ind. Howe v. Young, 16 Ind. 312.
Iowa. Schmid v. Humphrey, 48
Iowa 652, 30 AmR 414.
Ky. Prestonsburg Coal Co. v. Wal-
len, 159 Ky. 369, 167 SW 395.

Me.-Lynn v. Hooper, 93 Me. 46, 44 A 127, 47 LRA 752; Jewett V. Gage, 55 Me. 538, 92 AmD 615.

Mich.-Barnes v. Brown, 95 Mich. 576, 55 NW 439. Minn.-Jones v. Snow, 56 Minn. 214, 57 NW 478.

Mo.-Haller v. St. Louis, 176 Mo. 606, 75 SW 613; Forney v. Geldmacher, 75 Mo. 113, 42 AmR 388; Atkinson v. Illinois Milk Co., 44 Mo. A. 153.

N. Y.-Buchanan v. Cranford Co., 112 App. Div. 278. 98 NYS 378; Mulholland V. McKeever, 64 App. Div. 617, 72 NYS 138.

Porto Rico.-Torres v. Rubert, 6 Porto Rico Fed. 701.

Eng.-Watkins v. Reddin, 2 F. &

F. 629.

[a] Illustrations.—(1) Dogs barking. Schmid v. Humphrey, 48 Iowa 652, 30 AmR 414. (2) Hog loose in road. Jewett v. Gage, 55 Me. 538, 92 AmD 615. (3) Rope dragging. Barnes v. Brown, 95 Mich. 576, 55 NW 439. (4) Wagon covered with flags. Jones v. Snow, 56 Minn. 214, 57 NW 478. (5) Turning hose on horses. Forney v. Geldmacher, 75 Mo. 113, 42 AmŘ 388.

Placing objects in road calculated to frighten horses see infra § 442.

Reckless driving see supra § 424. 4. Rodgers v. Harper, 170 Ala. 647, 54 S 199: McGoldrick v. Wabash R. Co., 200 Mo. A. 436, 200 SW 74 [certiorari quashed sub nom. State v. Ellison, 204 SW 396]; Goldstein v. East Fallowfield Tp., 43 Pa. Super. 158.

a

[a] Illustrations. - (1) Whether the throwing of shavings and dust from defendant's mill into a highway was calculated to frighten horse of ordinary gentleness was for the jury. Rodgers v. Harper, 170 Ala. 647, 54 S 199. (2) Where a wagon and a grindstone were placed on a highway, it cannot be said as a matter of law that a passing horse