What is the test for “failure to keep a proper lookout” in a motor vehicle accident?

In my opinion this provision does not touch the facts of.” the present case, and the finding in this respect must be disregarded. This, however, does not impair the validity of the other and separate part of the jury’s answer, which finds the defendant guilty of negligence for failure to keep a proper lookout, and which, as I have already intimated, may be founded upon the evidence. Defendant’s counsel objects that this finding is vague and difficult to understand, but in this I do not follow him. In their statement of claim the plaintiffs, after pleading that their car was struck by the defendant’s car, allege that the collision was due -to the negligence and reckless driving of the defendant, of which they give particulars, and among which they aver that in meeting their car he kept no proper or adequate lookout. I take it that the jury’s finding that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout, is to be related to such allegations; in which event it simply means that, if the defendant had been as watchful as he should have been, under the circumstances disclosed in the evidence, he would have seen the plaintiffs’ car in time to avoid the collision. This finding is much more specific than were the findings of the jury in Antaya v. Wabash Ry. (1911) 24 O.L.R. 88, and in Kerr v. Laing Produce & Storage Co.. Ltd. (1931) 40 O.W.N. 146, respectively cited by the defendant.