Salt Lake Telegram | 1918-07-10 | Page 2 | Auto Occupant Wins from R. R.; Driver Does Not

IA AUTO T OCCUPANT CUPANI WIN fR FROM M MI H. H H. H I nOE NUl Roads Road's Negligence Entitles Passenger to Money Chauffeurs Chauffeur's Bars Him Judge Carelessness Sa Says s' s TRE PHE d differing responsibilities A of a dr driver ver and a passenger in inthe inthe inthe in a collision are illustrated the dec decision s n of Justice Frick Prick of f the state court reversing thE of orthe the Salt Lake county district coUrt for Samuel in his damage suit against the Salt Lake Utah Railroad company while af affirming affirming at- at firming the recovery obtained by Isadora Isadora Isa Isa- dora Montague a 17 year old girl who with six others was a passenger in car wh when n It was hit at ata ata ata a a- Salem crossing in July 1916 JU JURY Y GAVE DAMAGES charged a lack of or warning warning warning warn warn- ing Signs and signals insufficient headlight observation and control and claimed the speed of or the train was excessive and a jury held the I defendant negligent awarding da dam dam- ages The defendant corporation ap appealed appealed appealed ap- ap pealed from this judgment as well I Was as as from the judgment for Miss i M Montague 1 t e. e In view of or the defendants defendant's negligence gence g Justice Frick k concludes concludes' In the case the th jury entirely excused excused ex ex- plaintiffs plaintiff's he and visited all the te consequences consequences of or the accident upon the defendant This the law lav does n not t sanction Under such circumstances the court should never forget torget that the supremacy supremacy of or orthe the law is the safeguard of or the people FORE FORESIGHT IGHT LACKING LACKING The only safety lies in enforcing the law which imposed the d duty ty upon both traveler and railroad operative to exercise due due c care r at t all times In thi this c case se if the plaintiff had exercised that ordinary care prudence prudence prudence pru pru- dence and foresight which the law required of ot ev everyone ry ne for his own safety while trav traveling on a public street or highway j the acci accident ent could not have happened The case is remanded for new trial But in the other other case the court states it is now firmly committed to the doctrine that the e of ot the the- driver of or a vehicle is Is' not imputable imputable im im- put ble to a passenger The judgment is affirmed plaintiff to recover costs on appeal