Garrett v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 24304.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1933
• Docket Number: 24304.
• Citation: 173 Wash. 394,23 P.2d 402
• Parties: GARRETT v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

23 P.2d 402

173 Wash. 394

GARRETT v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA et al.

No. 24304.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 26, 1933

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Matt L. Driscoll Judge.

Action by Mildred Garrett, now Mildred Riley, against the Standard Oil Company of California, and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Sharpstein & Smith and Herbert Ringhoffer, all of Walla Walla, for appellants.

Earl W Benson, of Walla Walla, for respondent.

MITCHELL Justice.

This action was brought to recover judgment for personal injuries and damages to plaintiff's automobile, caused by the collision between her automobile and one belonging to the Standard Oil Company of California, a corporation, driven at the time by Harry Dobkins, an agent and employee of the Standard Oil Company, and at that time engaged in its business. The accident occurred one afternoon in August 1930, in Walla Walla county, in the intersection of the Inland Empire Highway No. 3, an arterial highway running east and west, having a twenty-foot pavement marked by a black center line, and Hussey road, an improved graveled road running north and south.

The plaintiff sued the Standard Oil Company of California and Harry Dobkins. The issues were negligence and contributory negligence. Upon the trial, June, 1932, there was a verdict for $10,593.25 against the defendants. Each of the defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and in the alternative for a new trial, on the several statutory grounds. The motions were in all respects denied. The defendants have appealed from a judgment on the verdict.

The assignments are (1) that the court erred in denying the motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and (2) that the verdict was excessive.

The seene of the accident is in what may be called level country. West of the intersection the arterial highway is straight for nearly half a mile, over all of which distance Dobkins drove the Standard Oil Company's automobile at a very high rate of speed until the collision occurred. Indeed appellants, speaking in their brief of the speed at which Dobkins was driving, admit 'the jury was justified in finding that he was driving at a rate of speed somewhere in excess of sixty-two miles an hour and up to a speed of about seventy miles an hour.' The only contention of the appellants on this feature of the appeal is predicated solely on the charge of contributory negligence.

The respondent was driving north along the Hussey road, and came to a stop at a stop sign 22 feet south of the intersection. She then moved slowly toward the pavement, looked to her left, and saw appellant's car coming about one-eighth of a mile away, then, after getting to or on the pavement, another observation indicated that appellant's car, nearly 200 feet away, was coming at a very rapid rate of speed and gradually getting north of the black line along the center of the pavement. Respondent and Mrs. Berry, who was riding with her, intended to go west along the paved highway. Respondent abandoned that idea on account of the rapid approach of appellant's car, and continued a straight course north over the intersection, and, by putting her car into intermediate, succeeded in getting it partly north of the pavement, when it was struck on the left rear wheel at a point north of the center of the pavement.

Respondent's account of the accident was about as follows: She was driving north along the east side of the Hussey road, stopped at the stop sign 22 feet south of the paved highway, looked to the left down the highway about one-fourth of a mile, and saw no car coming. Then, in low, she drove up a slight grade toward the pavement, and, as...