Ballard v. Collins

• Decision Date: 08 June 1911
• Citation: 63 Wash. 493,115 P. 1050
• Parties: BALLARD v. COLLINS et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

115 P. 1050

63 Wash. 493

BALLARD v. COLLINS et ux.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 8, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.

Action by Harriet E. Ballard against C. R. Collins and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H. R. Clise and C. K. Poe, for appellants.

Trefethen & Grinstead, for respondent.

GOSE J.

This suit was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, and for injuries to her automobile, in consequence of a collision between her automobile and the automobile of the defendants. The two cars collided at about the line of intersection of First Avenue North and Harrison street, and near the north side of the latter street, in the city of Seattle. The plaintiff's car had been traveling north on First Avenue North, and as it turned west into Harrison street the collision occurred. The defendants' car was traveling east on Harrison street, on the north or lefthand side thereof, at the time of the collision. First Avenue North runs north and south, and Harrison street runs east and west. The case was tried to the court, terminating in a judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendants have appealed. At the time of the collision, the respondent's car was entering Harrison street on the right-hand side, and the appellants' car was passing out of Harrison street, traveling upon the left-hand side of the street. The collision happened in the evening, after dark upon a dark night. The respondent's car had its gas headlights and its oil lights lighted, and the appellants' car had its oil lights lighted, but not its gas headlights. The respondent's chauffeur testified that he sounded his horn as he turned into Harrison street. The driver of the appellants' car admits that he gave no signal or warning of his approach. Section 5558, Rem. & Bal. Code, provides that drivers of vehicles shall seasonably turn their vehicles to the right of the center of the road, when meeting another vehicle on a public highway. Section 5569 provides that every automobile shall be provided with a bell or horn, which shall be rung or blown whenever there is danger of collision or accident, and that, 'The driver or operator of every automobile or motor vehicle shall turn to the right in meeting vehicles, teams and persons moving or headed in an opposite direction, and turn to the right in passing vehicles, teams and persons moving or headed in the same direction.'

Section 54 of ordinance No. 16,081 of the city of Seattle provides 'It shall be unlawful for any person, while driving any horse or other animal attached to any vehicle, or driving or propelling any automobile over, along or through any paved, planked or macadamized street, to occupy other than the right side of any such street, except within the block in which is the point of destination.'

Section 62 provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any person to ride, drive or propel any automobile, auto cycle or other motor vehicle, without having attached thereto a bell, gong, horn, or whistle, in good working order, and sufficient to give warning of the approach of such machine or vehicle, or to fail or neglect to sound such device as a warning, when necessary, upon approaching any street car, carriage, automobile, auto cycle or other vehicle, horse or other animal, or pedestrian, or upon approaching any place where any person or persons may be entering or leaving any street car, or other public conveyance, or upon approaching any street intersection or before passing around any corner.'

The ordinance further provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any person to ride, drive or propel any automobile, or other motor vehicle, between the hours of sunset and sunrise, unless there shall be fastened to the front thereof at least two white lights of sufficient candle power to enable the person driving or operating such vehicle to clearly see ahead a distance of at least two hundred feet.'

Harrison street was paved at the time of the accident, and the point where the appellants' car crossed to the north of the street was not within the block of its destination. The court found, in substance, that, at the time of the accident, the respondent's car was proceeding on the right-hand side of the street at a rate of speed not exceeding four miles an hour; that it displayed two white lights, of sufficient brilliancy and candle power to enable its driver to clearly see ahead a distance of over two hundred feet; that its driver was handling it in a prudent and careful manner; that the appellants' machine was proceeding on the left-hand side of the street without such white lights, and that the 'collision was caused entirely and solely by reason of the negligence, carelessness, want of attention, and safe driving of the defendants" driver.

It is clear from the facts stated that the driver of the appellants' car was guilty of gross negligence. He was driving on the wrong side of the street, in defiance of both the statute and the ordinance of the city. Nor did he display the headlights, or sound his horn, as required by law. In Engelker v. Seattle Electric Co., 50 Wash. 196, 96 P. 1039, speaking of an ordinance of the city of Seattle which limits the rate of speed of street cars in the business or settled residential districts to 12 miles an hour, the court said: 'We prefer to adhere to the doctrine that a thing which is done in violation of positive law is in itself negligence.' This rule is followed in Wilson v. Puget Sound Electric Railway, 52 Wash. 522, 101 P. 50, 132 Am St. Rep. 1044. The same view was announced in Irwin v. Judge, 81 Conn. 492, 71 A. 572, and Fenn v. Clark, 11 Cal.App. 79, 103 P. 944. The appellants have cited Spurrier v. Front Street Cable Ry. Co., 3 Wash. 659, 29 P. 346. That case arose out of a collision between a street car and a wagon drawn by a team of horses. The court said in that case that the law of the road, as applied to free vehicles, is founded on good reasons, and that its observance tends to prevent carelessness, but that it...