
    No. 482
    CLARKSON v. CLARK
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.
    No. 1873.
    Decided May 31, 1927
    904. PEDESTRIANS; — Notwithstanding the increase in traffic, pedestrians still have some rights in crossing the streets at intersections. See 54 OS. 181.
    FirBt Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — Marshall, Melhorn, Marler & Martin and W. W. Campbell for Clarkson; Frank G. Thompson for Clark; all of Toledo
   RICHARDS,J.

This is a personal injury case brought by James Clark against Charles Clarkson in the Lucas Common Pleas, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in his favor in the amount of $1000.

The facts are that Clarkson was driving his-car up to a street intersection and just as he got there the signal changed and he speeded up. Clark when he started to cross the street had the signal with him, but it changed before he reached the other curb. The pavement was slippery and wet and Clarkson in attempting to avoid the accident skidded into Clark.

On error proceedings from the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

1. “Ancient rights have not changed because new vehicles of travel have been introduced upon the streets, nor because a portion of the people who ride, being in haste to reach their destination demand rapid transit. The streets remain for all -the people, and he who goes afoot has the right, especially at a crossing, to walk to his destination; he should not be compelled to run, or to dodge and scramble, to avoid collision -with vehicles. - - - There is no priority of right, so that the right of neither is exclusive. Railway Co. v. Snell, 54 OS. 181, 204.

2. Certainly a pedestrian has' the same right, in the exercise of ordinary care, to cross a street at an intersection no faster than a walk and facts ought not to justify the statement, publicly made, that no one has seen a person walk across the streets in the down town section of the city.

Judgment affirmed.

(Williams, Lloyd, JJ., concur.)  