| Summary: | 600 25 NORTH DAKOTA REPORTS of 1909, specifically require that such signal shall be given by the driver of an animal-propelled vehicle, and the signal by an occupant is insufficient to con stitute the statutory signal to be given by the driver. Until such signal is given by the driver, no liability under the statute for failing to stop attaches. But, in the absence of a signal, a failure to stop, or a failure to heed signals given by other occupants of the vehicle than the driver, may be matters for the jury with all the facts of the case upon questions of common-law negligence involved. Opinion filed May 17, 1913. Rehearing denied June 19, 1913. From a judgment of the District Court for Foster County, Coffey, J., defendant appeals. Reversed and new trial granted. 1 T. F. McCue, for appellant. The plaintiff should not have been permitted to give his conclusions to the jury that the buggy was all right. American Soda Fountain Co. v. Hogue, 17 N. D. 375, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1113, 116 N. W. 339. Natural or imminent dangers do not necessarily follow or result from the use of an automobile. Expressions of such character by the court in its charge to the jury are prejudicial error. Moffitt v. Cressler. 8 Iowa, 122 Farr v. Fuller, 8 Iowa, 347. Unsupported and misleading instructions constitute reversible error. Mundhenk v. Central Iowa R. Co. 57 Iowa, 718, 111 N. W. 656; Man-nion v. Talboy, 76 Neb. 570, 107 N. W. 750 Kilpatrick v. Richardson, 37 Neb. 731, 56 N. W. 481 Lang v. Bailes, 19 N. D. 582, 125 N. W. 891; Pattee v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 5 Dak. 267, 38 X. W. 435. Our laws regulate the use of automobiles. Rev. Codes ยงยง 2173, 2174; as amended by chap. 42, Laws 1909. It is error for the court to place before the jury, in its instructions, matters and questions not presented in the pleadings. Stein v. Seaton, 51 Iowa, 18, 50 N. W. 576; Whitsett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 67 Iowa, 150, 25 N. W. 104; Cressy v. Postville, 59 Iowa, 62, 12 X. W. 757; Barron v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N. D. 277, 113 N. W. 102; Forzen v. Hurd, 20 N. D. 42, 126 N. W. 224 Sargent v. Linden Min. Co. 55 Cal. 204, 3 Mor. Min. Rep. 207; Western Home Ins. Co. v. Thorpe, 40 Kan. 255, 19 Pac. 631.
|
|---|