Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Co. v. O'Day

This case is sharply distinguishable from the case of Henderson v. Cleveland Ry. Co., ante, 468, 175 N. E., 863, recently decided. There is a material distinction between the situation presented where a pedestrian or traveler in an automobile acts upon the “go” signal of a traffic light required by a municipality to be maintained at an intersection, and the situation here presented, where a traveler approaches an intersection at which an automatic signal is maintained and operated purely on its own initiative by a public utility.. In the first-instance, there is a positive prohibition imposed…