Broderick v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co., 12660.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | MAIN, J. |
| Citation | 150 P. 616,86 Wash. 399 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12660. |
| Parties | BRODERICK v. PUGET SOUND TRACTION, LIGHT & POWER CO. |
150 P. 616
86 Wash. 399
BRODERICK
v.
PUGET SOUND TRACTION, LIGHT & POWER CO.
No. 12660.
Supreme Court of Washington
July 28, 1915
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. [150 P. 617]
A. F. Williams, of Seattle, for appellant.
Jas. B. Howe and A. J. Falknor, both of Seattle, for respondent.
MAIN, J.
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.
[86 Wash. 400] 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 [86 Wash. 401] 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.
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sturgeon v. Clark, No. 6810
...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. We recognize a conflict of authority on the question of whether a judgment for plaintiff would be res judicata against his copartne......
-
Turner v. New Brunswick Fire Ins. Co. of New Brunswick, 4587.
...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 being for se......
-
Sellman v. Haddock, No. 6122
...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, 178 P.2d Re......
-
City of Red Wing v. Eichinger, No. 24094.
...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. That fundamental element which supports the doctrine of subrogation, namely, the call for substantial justice, is absent. The city has been......
-
Sturgeon v. Clark, 6810
...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. We recognize a conflict of authority on the question of whether a judgment for plaintiff would be res judicata against his copartne......
-
Turner v. New Brunswick Fire Ins. Co. of New Brunswick, 4587.
...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 being for se......
-
Turner v. New Brunswick Fire Ins. Co. of New Brunswick, N. J., 4587.
...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." It is claimed the plaintiffs fail to meet either of these tests. We think they meet both. The assignments being for security ......
-
Sellman v. Haddock, 6122
...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, 178 P.2d Re......