Broderick v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.
| Citation | 150 P. 616,86 Wash. 399 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12660. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | BRODERICK v. PUGET SOUND TRACTION, LIGHT & POWER CO. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John E Humphries, Judge.
Action by Mary I. Broderick against the Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
A. F Williams, of Seattle, for appellant.
Jas. B Howe and A. J. Falknor, both of Seattle, for respondent.
This action was brought for the purpose of recovering damages claimed to have resulted to the plaintiff's automobile by the negligence of the defendant. In due time after the issues were framed, the cause came on for trial before the court sitting without a jury, and resulted in a judgment of dismissal. From this judgment, the plaintiff appeals.
The facts are briefly as follows: On the 5th day of February, 1913, and for some time prior thereto, the plaintiff was the owner of an automobile. This automobile for a compensation was taken care of by the Broadway Automobile Company. When the appellant desired to use the automobile, she would phone the Broadway Automobile Company, and an employé of that company would deliver it at her home. When she desired it returned from her home to the garage, she would phone the automobile company, and an employé of that company would call for the car and return it. On the evening of the date above mentioned, when an employé of the automobile company was returning the automobile from the home of the plaintiff to the garage, the automobile collided with a freight car owned by the defendant company.
The Broadway Automobile Company carried insurance, covering automobiles in its charge, in the Missouri Fidelity & Casualty Company. Shortly after the accident, the officers of the Broadway Automobile Company and the representatives of the Missouri Fidelity & Casualty Company held a conference, and it was decided to call for bids for the repairs made necessary to the automobile by reason of the collision. Bids being called for, one Alexander Christie being the lowest bidder, the contract was awarded to him, and most of the repairs were made by him. A portion of the work, however, was done by the Broadway Automobile Company. Neither Alexander Christie nor the Broadway Automobile Company ever presented a statement to the appellant covering the amount of such repairs. Alexander Christie made out his account against the Broadway Automobile Company. No insurance was ever paid by the casualty company. Neither was Alexander Christie nor the Broadway Automobile Company ever paid for the repairs. The machine, after it was repaired, apparently was used by the appellant under the same arrangement with the Broadway Automobile Company which had existed prior to the accident. The appellant makes no claim for damages on account of any depreciation in the value of the car, due to the accident. She did claim damages in the sum of $45, which she expended in the hire of another automobile while her own car was undergoing the repairs.
At the conclusion of the trial the trial court was of the opinion that the appellant had no right to maintain the action for any other sum than the $45 mentioned, and offered to enter a judgment in her favor for this sum. This judgment the attorneys, who appeared for her in the action, declined to accept. Thereupon a judgment was entered as above indicated, dismissing the action.
The trial court found that the appellant had no interest in the action; that she never authorized or became liable for the bills or expenses incurred in repairing the automobile; that the bills were authorized by the insurance company, whose attorneys appeared in the present action. Exceptions were sought to be taken to these findings. It is argued by the respondent that the exceptions are not sufficient to challenge the correctness of the findings. It will be assumed, but not decided, that the exceptions are sufficient to call in question the correctness of the findings. Without reviewing the evidence in detail, it may be said that, after giving attentive consideration to all the evidence in the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence supports the findings.
The controlling question in this case is whether the appellant, after receiving her machine fully repaired, had such an interest in the claim against the defendant company, alleged to be due to its negligence, that she could maintain the action. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 179, provides that:
'Every action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sturgeon v. Clark
...he is in a position to release and discharge the defendant from the liability upon which the action is grounded. Broderick v. Puget Sound, etc., Co., 86 Wash. 399, 150 P. 616.' We recognize a conflict of authority on the question of whether a judgment for plaintiff would be res judicata aga......
-
Turner v. New Brunswick Fire Ins. Co. of New Brunswick
...he is in a position to release and discharge the defendant from the liability upon which the action is grounded. Broderick v. Puget Sound, etc., Co., 86 Wash. 399, 150 P. 616.” [5][6] It is claimed the plaintiffs fail to meet either of these tests. We think they meet both. The assignments b......
-
Sellman v. Haddock
...a position to release and discharge the defendant from the liability upon which the action is grounded', citing Broderick v. Puget Sound, etc., Co., 86 Wash. 399, 150 P. 616. These tests are stated in Reagan v. Dougherty, 40 N.M. 439, 62 P.2d 810, 811. See also State v. Barker, 51 N.M. 51, ......
-
City of Red Wing v. Eichinger
...233 S. W. 743; Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Indianapolis & C. T. Co. (Ind. App.) 139 N. E. 200; Broderick v. Puget Sound Traction Light & Power Co., 86 Wash. 399, 150 P. 616. That fundamental element which supports the doctrine of subrogation, namely, the call for substantial justic......