MOTORS v. DOGS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 99, 20 April 1914, Page 8

MOTORS v. DOGS.

In view of the fact that quite a large nnmbcir of eases are .almost ut daily occurrence in which motorists have run over dogs, the following, by courtesy of the well-known writer, “Laverock.’’ is inserted by the Stratford -Motoring Club:— Unquestionably (states Laveraek) the greatest enemy that the dog possesses at the present time is the motor ear. It would be interesting to know how many specimens of the canine race have lost their lives through being run over by motor ears in Taranaki alone since these machines came into being. During the last few months, nine, to the writer’s knowledge, including a pedigree bulldog, have crossed the Croat Divide. A dog almost invariably waits till the last moment to get out of the road of any vehicle on a road. Ho is, in fact, in this respect somewhat like the idea gained by a country yokel who spent a day in London, his impressions being that the sole idea dominating an Englishman’s life was to see how near ho could get to being run over without actually performing the feat. In these circumstances, it can well be understood that a dog, accustomed as he has been to the steady and reliable gait of bis friend the horse, who will never, if lie can possibly help it, tread on him, is entirely out of his reckoning with the (in most cases) terribly fast running motor car. He is unable to gunge the speed, and pays the pendty. In cities where dogs learn to he very careful, and motors are hound to he, the risk is not so great, but in '•ountry towns and roads the mortality amongst puppies and dogs is very ■peat. Presuming the owner of the log is fortunate enough to know whose oar it was who run over his dog, md to have some evidence of excessive >r unreasonable speed or other negligence on the part of the car driver it the time of the accident, he will hid the law ever ready to assist him. ; n most cases no doubt, the motor nvnor pays without recourse to law, vnd in nearly all eases he •Is prohibly wise to do so, but if he refuses o pay voluntarily, and the owner of bo dog is reasonable and proper in ns demands, a necessary action at law nay as a rule be entered upon with 'very confidence by the latter. A dog has every bit as much right to the ligh road as a motor car. Efforts have icon made on the part of motor ownws to get the courts to hold that dogs m the high road are only under proper control if on a “lead,” and if they ire not on a “lead” the owner of them s guilty of negligence in allowing Ids log to stroll about, and therefore is lot entitled to recover. Such efforts lave riot been successful. In the irst place, even supposing a court to mid that the fact of a dog being loose in this way or unaccompanied was evilence of negligence against Die owner —and as far as the writer is awaie, 10 court has held any such thing—his would by no means defeat bis hvner’s claim, for the law is that ' ongli a plaintiff imu bar.- beer negligent in some way as this, yet if the lefendant could, by the exorcise of •easonalile care, have avoided the ac■ident, the plaintiff can still recover. There are several cases that affirm his Valuable principle, but there is ono ■specially which to my mind is 'jest quoted in any such action, viz.: Davies v. Mann (10 M and W 546). In that •aso the owner of an ass, which had icon negligently- left hobbled and unguarded on the highway, sued the defendant, by the negligence of whose ;ervant in driving along a highway at 00 rapid speed the ass was run over md died. Baron Park, in his judgment, says: “Although there may lave been negligence on the part of ilaintiff, yet unless he might by the ■xorcise of ordinary care have avoided • die consequence of defendant’s negligence he is entitled to recover. Although the ass may have been wrongully on the high road still defendant vas bound to go along the road at such 1 pace as would be likely to prevent nisdiief. If this were not so, man night justify the driving over of goods eft on a public highway, or even over i sleeping man, or the purposely runling against a carriage going on the wrong side of the road.” Another nethod by which the motor owner enleavours to escape liability is by conending that the accident was a sndlen one, so sudden that it was inevitable, that nothing that ho could have lone would have prevented it, and that ic did everything that it was possible 0 do. If T however, the motor is going .lowly these accidents do not occur, md a motorist in going along a road mist have due regard for all things :hat may occur, and must always reiiember that ho is not entitled to go ilong at such a pace as would bo likely to cause accident. In a case decided a short time back the motor 1 river proved that the dog was in a ditch, and just as he passed by it jumped out in front of him, and did not give him time to pull up. The court held that that was no answer to the claim, that the driver, knowing full well the eccentricities of a dog, ought to have been prepared for such a contingency taking place ; instead of this, he, knowing that the flog was there, took the risk, did not slow up at all, and must pay the penalty.