Negligence — Action fob Death of Child — Automobile Accident— Evidence Sustaining Verdict.—In an action for the death of a child through being struck by an automobile, on a city street, where there was evidence that the defendant and another driver were racing at a rate of speed dangerous and exceeding that permitted by the city ordinance, although the testimony regarding the accident contained many contradictions, it was sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

Id.—Contributory Negligence—Instructions—Issue Introduced by Dependant on the Trial.—Although the defendant’s answer specifically denied negligence on his part and pleaded as an affirmative defense that the accident on which an action for the death of the plaintiff’s child was founded was caused exclusively by the negligence of the child, the defendant, who, on the trial, introduced evidence to show negligence on the part of the deceased boy and also asked for a number of instructions, which were given, on the law of contributory negligence, tried1 the case thereby upon the theory that contributory negligence was in issue and therefore he could not afterward complain on appeal that the pleadings raised no issue of contributory negligence and that, therefore, the court erred in instructing the. jury that “the defendant’s claim of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased child presupposes the existence of negligence on the part of defendant.”

Id.—Crossing Streets—Duty op Pedestrians and Drivers op Automobiles.—Pedestrians crossing a street have a right to assume that drivers of automobiles will keep a, reasonable lookout and exercise ordinary care to avoid accidents, and pedestrians are also bound generally to look after their own safety and use due care when crossing a highway where vehicles are to be looked for.

Id.—Damages Excessive.—A verdict of ten thousand dollars for the death of a child is excessive, and the judgment should be reversed where the evidence at the most shows that the deceased was a healthy child, six and a half years of age, loving and dutiful toward his parents, and there was no averment or proof of special damage nor anything to show that the pecuniary value of the child to his parents would have been any greater than that of the ordinary boy of his age; and even conceding that the child would have been of help to his parents after minority, which is only conjectural, the verdict is still excessive.