Ellis v. Olson

• Decision Date: 22 June 1926
• Docket Number: 20010.
• Citation: 246 P. 944,139 Wash. 351
• Parties: ELLIS et ux. v. OLSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

246 P. 944

139 Wash. 351

ELLIS et ux. v. OLSON.

No. 20010.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 22, 1926

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Findley, Judge.

Action by Ray Ellis and wife against George Olson. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank S. Griffith, of Seattle, for appellant.

Poe Falknor, Falknor & Emory, of Seattle, for respondents.

MAIN, J.

This action was brought to recover damages to an automobile and for personal injuries to the plaintiff Mrs. Ellis. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $320. The defendant made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the alternative for a new trial, both of which were overruled. Judgment was entered on the verdict, from which the defendant appeals.

The accident happened during the afternoon of December 14, 1924 at the intersection of University way and Ravenna boulevard in the city of Seattle. University way extends north and south and Ravenna boulevard east and west. An automobile owned by the respondents, and driven by their son Ward Ellis was proceeding east on Ravenna boulevard and approached the intersection of these two streets at a speed of about 20 miles an hour. At the time of entering the intersection, or just before, he shifted the gear into intermediate, he glanced or looked to the right and saw the appellant's automobile approaching from the south on University way about 150 feet distant. He then proceeded across the intersection at a speed of 15 miles an hour. When the front wheels of the automobile had reached what would be the east curb line if extended into the intersection, the rear right of the car was struck by the automobile of the appellant.

As to the speed of the respective automobiles, which one entered the intersection first, and the manner of the happening of the accident, the evidence is in dispute. The appellant's principal contention, if we have correctly gathered his argument, is that the driver of the automobile owned by the respondents was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in crossing the intersection without again looking in the direction from which the appellant's car was approaching. We think, however, that the question was one of fact for the jury and not one of law for the court. If the evidence offered on behalf of the respondents was accepted by the jury, as apparently it was their car entered the intersection first and had ample time to cross had the on-coming car been approaching at a lawful...