[Download] "Knott v. Pepper" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Knott v. Pepper
• Author : Supreme Court of Montana
• Release Date : January 03, 1925
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 56 KB

Description

Personal Injuries ? Automobile Accident ? Duty of Driver ? Driving Without Lights ? "Crossings" ? Negligence Per Se ? Evidence ? Cross-examination ? Harmless Error. Personal Injuries ? Negligence Per Se ? What Constitutes. 1. Failure to observe a statutory requirement to guard against injury to person or property (such as failure to light an automobile at the time fixed by statute) is negligence per se, and if such failure was the proximate cause of the injury, no further showing of negligence is necessary to warrant a recovery. Same ? Negligence ? Definition. 2. Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or the doing what such person under the existing circumstances would not have done. Same ? Negligence ? How Proved. 3. Negligence may be shown either by proof of failure to obey a positive statutory provision, or by acts or omissions of the defendant constituting negligence as defined above (par 2), independent of statutory enactment. Same ? Automobile Collision After Dark ? Driving Without Lights ? Statutory Provision ? Improper Instruction. 4. In an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision after dark between plaintiffs automobile, the lights of which were burning, and that of the defendant without lights, in which the negligence alleged was defendants driving without lights when a reasonably prudent man would have had them burning, an instruction that if the accident occurred before the hour fixed by section 1753, Revised Codes, for having lights, the absence of lights could not be deemed negligence, was properly refused, the hour fixed by statute being immaterial if the conditions were such as to require the display of lights. Same ? Evidence ? Defective Eyesight of Plaintiff ? Cross-examination ? When Refusal not Reversible Error. 5. Where plaintiff in an automobile collision case had admitted on cross-examination that his eyes were bad and his sight not of the best, and further examination as how the condition of his eyes affected his driving would have been proper, refusal to permit him to answer a question as to the nature of his eye trouble was not reversible error, since an answer to it would not have shed any light on his ability to drive the car. - Page 237 6. It is the duty of one driving an automobile out of a private driveway, before entering the highway, to look for approaching cars, and not to proceed into the highway if he sees another car coming unless, as a reasonably prudent person, he believes, and has the right to believe, that he can pass in front thereof in safety, the duty to look implying the duty to see what is in plain sight, unless a reasonable explanation is shown for not seeing. Same ? Automobiles ? Duty of Driver at Crossings ? "Crossings" ? Definition. 7. The word "crossing" as used in section 1743, Revised Codes of 1921, with relation of the duty of drivers at crossings, held to refer to the intersection of a highway and a railroad or of two highways, and therefore an instruction based upon that section offered by defendant, through whose negligence in driving on a private way across the highway with the intention of entering a gate on the opposite side, plaintiff was injured, was properly refused as not applicable.

Ebook Download "Knott v. Pepper" PDF ePub Kindle