Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

THE AUTOMOBILE

The extensive use of the automobile which has come about since this book was originally written makes it desirable to add a few words as to the rights and duties of owners and users of these vehicles.

Generally speaking, these rights and duties relative to other users of the highway are the same as those of horse-drawn vehicles, subject to such regulations as the dangerous qualities of these powerful machines have rendered necessary for the protection of the public. On the one hand the motorist is entitled with all other members of the public to the free use of the public highways and streets; on the other hand he has no superior right of way, and cannot by blowing his horn require every one else to make way for him.

Like all other drivers of vehicles upon the public highway, the motorist is bound to use reasonable care to avoid injuring others. What is reasonable care varies with the situation in which he is placed and the degree of danger involved; what, for instance would be a reasonable rate of speed on an open country road might be recklessly excessive in a crowded city street. The very fact, however, that the machine which he operates is so powerful and capable of such high speed imposes upon him at all times the duty of a special degree of care proportionate to these dangerous qualities.

In most of the states the rate of speed permitted on the highways is regulated by statute, sometimes by specifying the maximum number of miles allowed per hour, and sometimes, as in Massachusetts, by prohibiting a rate of speed "greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to traffic and the use of the way, and the safety of the public ", but specifying certain rates of speed as prima facie excessive.

Driving at a rate of speed in excess of the legal limits, when an accident results, is prima facie proof of negligence, and where the death of a person is caused by wilful and reckless overspeeding the driver may be convicted of manslaughter. It is no defence in such a case that after the person injured was seen every effort was made to avoid the accident.

Keeping within the limits prescribed by statute does not however exempt the driver from all further responsibility on this point. "On the contrary" says the Court in a recent case, "he still remains bound to anticipate that he may meet persons at any point in the public street, and he must keep a proper look-out for them and keep his machine under such control as to enable him to avoid collision with another person, using proper care and caution, and if necessary, he must slow up and even stop. No blowing of a horn or of a whistle or ringing of a bell or gong, without an attempt to slacken the speed is sufficient if the circumstances demand that the speed be slackened or machine stopped, and such a course is reasonably possible. The true test is that he must use all the care and caution which an ordinarily prudent and careful driver would have exercised under the same circumstances".

A pedestrian has the same rights in the street or highway as an automobile, and is not restricted to the use of cross-walks. The motorist approaching a pedestrian in the traveled part of a highway should give warning with his horn or bell, and if necessary, slow up or stop. He is held to a special degree of care in the case of children and of old or infirm persons. On the other hand he has a right to assume that any person using the highway is in full possession of the senses of sight and hearing, and may act on that assumption until he has reason to believe the contrary. Ordinarily, a pedestrian has no right of way superior to that of the driver of a vehicle; each may continue his own course, with relative regard for the other's rights of travel, and the driver of an automobile is not bound to stop unless it is necessary to prevent a collision. Not unfrequently, a pedestrian becomes frightened or confused in his efforts to avoid an approaching automobile. In such a case it has been held that the driver should not proceed, zigzagging back and forth in the effort to avoid a collision, but should bring his machine to a stop.

As the attention of the driver must of necessity be specially concentrated on what is in front of him he is not, as a general rule required to keep a look-out backward to see whether others are approaching in his rear; but to back his machine without looking behind for the safety of others, especially when close to a cross-walk in a city street is gross and inexcusable negligence.

The driver of an automobile is not bound to slow up in passing a street car when in motion, lest a passenger should jump off in his path, but when a car is standing at a customary stoppingpoint he is bound to know that persons have a right to pass and repass to and from the sidewalk and he must slow up and take special care to avoid an accident, On the other hand a person boarding a car and seeing an automobile approaching must on his part take reasonable care to avoid being run over.

As the safety of other users of the highway requires the full and constant exercise of the senses of sight and hearing on the part of the driver of an automobile it has been held that for a man blind of one eye and of imperfect vision to attempt to operate an automobile on a public road is of itself evidence of negligence. For substantially the same reason it is held to be gross negligence for a man to operate an automobile when under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and in most of the states a heavy penalty is imposed for doing so.

When approaching an intersecting street or a bridge or a sharp turn or curve in the road or a steep declivity the driver is required to slacken speed and to give due warning of his approach by sounding his horn or other signaling device.

As an automobile may be halted nearer a railroad track than a horse can usually be driven with safety the driver has a better opportunity to look for approaching trains. In approaching a railroad crossing, therefore, the law holds the driver "rigidly to such reasonable care and precaution as go to his own safety and that of the travelling public ", and it has been held that before attempting to cross the track he is bound to obey strictly the rule to stop, look, and listen.

When an automobile is left unattended in the street the laws of some states require that it shall be chained or locked to prevent its being started by unauthorized persons, but in the absence of such legislation it is usually sufficient to shut off the power, and if a stranger afterwards starts the machine, and an accident results the owner will not be responsible.

In the country, domestic animals of all kinds are often met with on the highway, and many motorists seem to suppose that they are there at their peril, and that they themselves have no duty in relation to them or at least that all that is required of

them under any circumstances is the sounding of the horn. This is a mistake. The owners of such animals when the latter are lawfully on the highway have the same rights as other users of the highway, and in all cases they are entitled to be protected against wanton or reckless acts by others. The motorist is bound to use every reasonable precaution to avoid running down such animals, dogs included.

The relative rights and duties of motorists and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles have frequently come in question. Both are equally entitled to use the highway and the mere fact that the presence or the operation of the automobile may cause the horseman annoyance or even danger gives the latter no legal ground for complaint. Even though the horse be frightened by the sight or sound of the automobile and an accident results, the motorist will not be responsible unless there has been some want of care on his part. If, however, he sees that the horse is frightened, or if the driver warns him that there is danger, he is bound to do everything in his power to prevent an accident by slowing down or stopping altogether, or even, if necessary, by stopping the operation of the engine. It is provided by statute in most of the states that the driver of the horse may require the motorist to take these measures, by raising his hand or otherwise signaling that his horse is frightened, but it would seem that the obligation of the motorist in this regard is substantially the same in the absence of any statutory requirement.

Like the drivers of all other vehicles the motorist is bound to conform to "the law of the road"-that is, in meeting another vehicle he must turn out to the right beyond the middle line of the travelled part of the road, and in passing another vehicle going in the same direction he must turn to the left. In England and in Canada the rule is the reverse of that in this country. When about to pass another vehicle the motorist must give notice by sounding his horn and the vehicle in front must then turn out to the right so as to allow him to pass unless there is room enough to pass without doing so. This rule however is subject to the qualifications that if the road is narrow the vehicle in front may continue on its way until it reaches a place where it can conveniently turn out and allow the other to pass.

For an automobile, or other vehicle, to be running on the wrong side of the road is prima facie proof of negligence on the part of the driver, but this presumption may be rebutted by showing that he had some valid reason for his action, as, for instance, that the road was obstructed, that he was obliged to turn aside to avoid collision with some other vehicle, or that he was about to stop on that side of the road or to turn into a side road; but it is not a sufficient excuse that the road on the right side is rough or not in good repair, unless it is actually dangerous; and the fact that a vehicle is on the wrong side of the road does not absolve the driver of other vehicles from the obligation to use all reasonable care to avoid collision with it. Both in this and in other cases it is a general rule that, without regard to the original fault, the party who has "the last clear chance" to avoid an accident is the one on whom the final responsibility falls.

While the motorist is bound under all ordinary circumstances to obey the law of the road as well as all other statutory requirements, emergencies may arise where too rigid adherence to rules is unjustifiable. In all cases he must exercise ordinary fairness and good judgment in reference to the rights of other users of the highway. As was said by an eminent judge, "The law expects the driver to use common sense".

In case of an accident the motorist is generally required by law to stop and to give his name and address, and the place of registration and number of his automobile, for the purpose of future identification. Neglect or refusal to do so will subject him to a heavy penalty.

When the automobile is operated by some person other than the owner questions frequently arise as to the liability of the latter in case of accident. In such case the mere fact that he is the owner does not make him liable; it must appear further that the person actually in charge of the machine was employed by him and acting in his service. Even the fact that the operator is his son or daughter does not make him responsible. The question still arises: Was the child engaged in the parent's business or acting under his instructions or control, or at his request? Thus where a daughter took a party of friends to ride in her father's automobile, without his authority, it was held that he was not responsible; and the same decision was made where a son was

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »