automobile in a collision with a street
car, where, upon an appeal of a com-
panion case brought by the driver, the
court held that the question of con-
tributory negligence was for the jury
and no claim is made that there is
any evidence in the present case tend-
ing to charge plaintiff with a higher
degree of care than the driver, it nec-
essarily follows that the question of
plaintiff's negligence in the present
case is for the jury. Waring v. Du-
buque Elec. Co., Iowa - 186 N.
.21:794-806
In an action by a passenger in an
automobile to recover damages for in-
juries received in a collision with a
street car at a street crossing, an in-
struction that if the jury found by a
preponderance of evidence that, at the
time plaintiff attempted to cross, it
appeared to her, acting as a
ably prudent and cautious
would act under the same or similar
circumstances, that no street car was
about to run over the track at that
point and that plaintiff could reason-
ably have expected to cross the track
before any street car reached the cor-
ner, they would not be warranted in
finding plaintiff guilty of contributory
negligence, was not objectionable as
assuming that the driver of the auto-
mobile saw and knew that a street.
car was approaching. Waring v. Du-
buque Elec. Co.,
186 N. W.
42 (1922)
21:794-806
Effect of riding in car with
curtains down and wind shield
closed.
In an action by a passenger in an
automobile, which was being driven by
her husband, to recover damages for
personal injuries received in a collision
with a street car, the court properly
refused a request to give an instruction
the thought of which was that by rid-
ing as a passenger in an automobile
18. Injury to pedestrian-Liability of
head of family for negligent act of
member.
The mere fact that an automobile
is furnished by the head of a family
for family use does not create an
agency so as to render the owner liable
for the negligence of any member using
the car, but there may be circum-
stances under which it would be a ques-
tion of fact for the jury whether the
person operating the car was the agent
of the head of the family or was agent
of the particular members of the fam-
ily for whose pleasure and benefit the
car was being used. Norton v. Hall,
Ark. -
232 S. W. 934 (1921).....
21:242-275
agent existed between them and the 24. Motorcycle-Injury to third person
owner, and the trial court properly
held that no cause of action was stated
exceeding
speed limit in pursuit of lawbreaker.
A policeman is not chargeable with
a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act
solely because, while pursuing a law-
breaker to place him under arrest, he
operates a motorcycle in a manner pro-
hibited by the act. Edberg v. John-
Minn. 184 N. W. 12 (1921)
21:871-876
Admissibility of evidence that
damage from bursting water pipe
not contributed to by.
In an action against a city for dam-
age caused by the bursting of a water
pipe to property of plaintiffs located
in a basement occupied by them, where
the defense was made that plaintiffs
were violating an ordinance in occu-
pying premises not properly equipped
with drains, it was competent for
plaintiffs to show that failure to in-
stall the drain in no way contributed
to the injury. Kotkins v. City of
Seattle, Wash. 206 Pac. 11 (1922)
21:950-955
7. Ordinances-Power to require pro-
tection of elevators.
The power of the city of Chicago to
pass an ordinance requiring guarding
of freight elevators in buildings by
means of sufficient fences or gates is
implied from the provisions of para-
graphs 66, 75 and 78 of sec. 1, art. 5
of the Cities and Villages Act (Cahill's
Ill. St. ch. 24, ¶ 65, subds. 66, 75, 78).
Marcovitz v. Hergenrether, 302 Ill. 162,
134 N. E. 85 (1922)...
.......21:739-755
Violation by a tenant of an ordi-
nance by occupying a basement which
was ot equipped with such drains as
the ordinance requires is not a defense
in an action for damages against the
city resulting from the bursting of a
water pipe unless such violation con-
tributed to the damage for which re-
covery is sought. Kotkins v. City of
Seattle,
Wash.
8.
206 Pac. 11
(1922)
.21:950-955
Admissibility of evidence that
officer had issued a permit for viola-
tion.
In an action against a city for dam-
ages resulting from the bursting of a
water pipe, where the defense was
made that plaintiffs were occupying
the premises on which the damage was
sustained in violation of an ordinance
as to drains, evidence that some offi-
cer of the city had issued a permit
for the construction in the premises of
the drain which was in use, was in-
admissible. Kotkins v. City of Seattle,
- Speed of trains Presumption as
to reasonableness.
An ordinance regulating the speed
of trains through a municipality, en-
acted under the exercise of police
power, which conforms to the limita-
tions prescribed by the Legislature, is
presumptively reasonable and valid,
and not in conflict with the state or
federal constitutions. But the pre-
sumption may be rebutted, and in order
to overcome such presumption a rail-
way company must affirmatively show
its unreasonableness. Cleveland, C. C.
Ohio
& St. L. Ry. Co. v. Grambo,
134 N. E. 648 (1921)......
21:466-481
Annotation: Liability of charitable
institution for negligence...21:302-332
Annotation: Liability of owner of
premises for injury to persons in street
by acts of persons permitted or author-
ized to use premises... 21:668-671
Annotation: Injury to child en
ventre sa mere
.21:702-704
Annotation:
negligence, assumed
Use of side curtains or
windshield restricting view of driver
of automobile as affecting negligence
21:794-806
Annotation: Injury to persons in
street by fall of glass from abutting
property
.21:807-818
Annotation: Violation by driver of
motor vehicle of statute or ordinance
as to speed as constituting negligence
21:956-975
1. Ability to foresee consequences of
act.
If a defendant's act was negligent,
his liability does not depend upon his
In an action for negligence, plain-
tiff, in making specific allegations of
burden of
proof and could not make a prima facie
case without proving one more
of the specific acts charged. Rice v.
White, Mo. 239 S. W. 141 (1922)
21:807-819
In an action for damages for in-
juries sustained when glass fell from
a window and struck plaintiff who
was upon the sidewalk, allegations that
the owner of the building, who was
a defendant, permitted large panes of
glass to become and remain insecure,
loosened, and in a dangerous condition
violate some principle of the doctrine
of police regulation. North Bend Lum-
Wash.
ber Co. v. City of Seattle,
ད 199 Pac. 988 (1921)....21:286-301
1. Effect of misjoinder.
Under section 13 of chapter 12 of the
Judicature Act (Mich. Comp. L. 1915,
§ 12364), the fact that the commis-
sioner of roads was improperly joined
with the commissioner of highways as
a party plaintiff in an action for dam-
ages for injuries to the highways of
a township operating under the town-
ship highway system, did not justify a
dismissal of the case. Struble v. Re-
public Motor Truck Co., 216 Mich. 299,
185 N. W. 792 (1921).
......21:138-154
2. Effect of sustaining of demurrer as
to one defendant.
In an action for damages against a
city and certain individuals, where
|