OCR Text |
Show Matiar Has Been Clarified by Tkrss Rscsrsi Dzcl-sions Dzcl-sions oi Court. Tito responsibility of a motorist, where an injury lias been done another, anoth-er, has been clarilied by the terms of three recent court decisions, according accord-ing to the legal department of the American Motorists' association in cooperation co-operation with the Automobile Cliib of Illinois. The first, and considered of major importance to the motorist, holds him responsible when be parks Ids vehicle on a dange.ous curve and either directly or indirectly causes in jury to another. The second held that a motorist was responsible when a wheel became detached, striking a pedestrian. pe-destrian. The third decision is to the effect that the driver of an automobile automo-bile is liable to a licensee, riding in his car, only for willful injuries. Parking on Curves. J The decision involving the question of parking on curves was rendered by the 1'ennsyivania Superior court, which lipid tiie defendant-motorist responsible responsi-ble despite the fact that the plaintiff i did not strike the parked car but wrecked his machine in attempting to avoid it. The court held that the mere fact that there was no contact between the plaintiff's automobile and the parked one did not relieve the defendant-owner from liability. In the case where a wheel became detached from a moving vehicle, striking strik-ing a pedestrian, the Connecticut Su preme court sustained an $3,750 verdict ver-dict of the lower court on the theory that it was the duty of the motorist to give bis automobile such close supervision super-vision and inspection as would prevent pre-vent such an accident. In its verdict the court placed the burden of proof on the motorist to prove that the Inspection In-spection had been made of lii. vehicle, ve-hicle, the benefit of a doubt being given the suing plaintiff. Was Mere Licensee. A New Jersey n.otori. t, sued by the administrator of a limisee-pasvnger, was held in the third case to be not responsible for tiie passenger's death where the pa-ssenger had been invited by a third party to go for a ride. Tiie driver who was also the owner of the Machine had not e:.tcnd.;d the invitation. invita-tion. The New Jersey Supreme court held that unit ss the motorist had been guilty of willful injury that he could pot be held responsible, inasmuch as the passenger that was killed was n "mere licemte." Commenting on the three decisions, SI Mayer, vice presid' nt of the association asso-ciation and president of the Automobile Automo-bile Club of Illinois, pointed out that there Is a (.'rowing t' lidency on the part of the court to hold a motorist to sttrict accountability where damage or Injury to a third person is concerned. "The motorist;. c; n whole, will be protected by a strict rule of law which muk.'S every olh- r motorist responsible re-sponsible for all of hi.-: wrongful acts," Mr. May r declared. |