Geitner v. Stephenson

• Decision Date: 29 January 1926
• Docket Number: 19412.
• Citation: 242 P. 1099,137 Wash. 464
• Parties: GEITNER v. STEPHENSON
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

242 P. 1099

137 Wash. 464

GEITNER v. STEPHENSON

No. 19412.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 29, 1926

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Nichoson, Judge.

Action by A. J. Geitner against Dora M. Stephenson, in which defendant filed a cross-complaint. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant and cross-complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Roy E Bigham, of Seatlle, for appellant.

O. L Boose, of Sunnyside, for respondent.

MAIN J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages which a Ford truck owned by him sustained when it collided with an automobile owned by the defendant. In her answer the defendant denied liability and by cross-complaint sought a recovery of damages to her car. The cause was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in findings of fact and conclusions of law sustaining the plaintiff's right to recovery and denying the right of the defendant to recover upon her cross-complaint. From the judgment in the sum of $255 in favor of the plaintiff, defendant and cross-complainant appeals.

The facts may be summarized as follows: The respondent is the owner of a Ford truck which at the time of the accident was operated by an employee, one C. W. Reeves. The appellant was the owner and driver of a Studebaker touring car. The accident happened on the 24th day of September, 1924, at about 12 o'clock noon on a paved highway something like a mile north of the town of Sunnyside in Yakima county. It was a clear day and there was no other traffic on the road at the time. The paved portion of the highway was 20 feet wide. On either side thereof there is what is called a dirt shoulder of approximately 3 feet. Outside of this there is a ditch on each side of the road. The Ford truck was proceeding north and the driver thereof saw the approaching car when about an eighth of a mile distant. The appellant, who was driving her own car, saw the Ford truck approaching at about the same time. After the driver of the Ford truck was aware of the approaching automobile, he attempted to adjust his rear vision mirror which was attached to the left front of the wind shield and extended out a distance of 6 or 7 inches. The Ford truck, the driver says, was in the middle of the pavement. The evidence establishes, and the trial court believed, that it was on the left side thereof instead of on the right side as he proceeded north. The appellant and two witnesses who were in her car at the time mistook the adjustment of the rear vision mirror by the driver of the Ford truck for a signal indicating a turn to the left and off of the highway into one of the roadways that led from the pavement to houses that were on that side of the road. Each car was going at a speed of approximately 20 miles per hour. When the cars were approximately 70 feet apart, the appellant turned to the left. Immediately the driver of the truck, which it may be admitted was in the middle of the pavement, abruptly turned to the right. The...