On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 112 N.J.L. 443.
For the appellants, Collins & Corbin and Edward A. Markley (Howard F. McIntyre, of counsel).
For the respondents, Arthur M. Birdsall (Theodore C. Parsons, of counsel).
The opinion of the Supreme Court adequately sets forth the facts presented in the trial court and the legal questions involved in the motions for nonsuit and for direction of a verdict for the defendants. The requests for instructions to the jury were in part also adequately and properly considered. We think it desirable, however, to deal more fully with the status of the law with respect to the right of way as set forth in certain provisions of the Traffic act of 1928, and as invoked in the requests.
Section 2 of article 8 of chapter 281, laws of 1928, page 733, provides as follows:
"Excepting as herein otherwise provided, every driver of a vehicle when entering or crossing any intersection shall grant the right of way at all times to any vehicle approaching from his right."
Section 12, art. 8, P. L. 1928, p. 735 (Comp. St. Supp. 1930, § 179 -- 725R (812), provides:
"When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right."
The two requests for instructions were obviously intended to present these provisions of the law; the situation of the motorcycle and the automobile being that the automobile was approaching an intersection of the highway on which the motorcycle was being driven from its left. The requests were in the following language:
"18. If you find that the automobile arrived at the intersection before the motorcycle did, and had not passed over the intersection before the arrival of the motorcycle, then under those circumstances the automobile had the right of way.
"19. Every driver of a vehicle, when entering or crossing any intersection, shall grant the right of way at all times to any vehicle approaching from his right."
The latter request is apparently intended to quote the exact language of section 2. It fails, however, to incorporate therein the preliminary words, ...