Goan v. Ogden, L. & I. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1917
• Docket Number: 3113
• Citation: 51 Utah 285,169 P. 949
• Parties: GOAN v. OGDEN, L. & I. RY. Co
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

169 P. 949

51 Utah 285

GOAN v. OGDEN, L. & I. RY. Co

No. 3113

Supreme Court of Utah

December 21, 1917

Appeal from District Court of Weber County, Second District; Hon. A W. Agee, Judge.

Action by W. H. Goan against the Ogden, Logan & Idaho Railway Company.

Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

AFFIRMED.

J. D Murphy and John A. Sneddon for appellant.

Boyd DeVine & Eccles for respondent.

FRICK, C. J. McCARTY, CORFMAN, THURMAN, and GIDEON, JJ., concur.

OPINION

FRICK, C. J.

The plaintiff in this case sought to recover damages for personal injuries which were caused in a collision between an automobile driven by him and one of defendant's electric cars in Ogden City, which collision and injuries, he alleged, were caused through the negligence of the defendant. The case was tried to the court without a jury. The court found the issues in favor of the defendant, and entered judgment accordingly, from which plaintiff appeals.

The assigned errors practically all relate to the findings of the court. In view of the nature of the case the court's findings perhaps cover more details than was necessary. For the reason, however, that the objections to the findings go only to particular portions in which evidently rather than ultimate facts are found, and for the reason that it is almost impossible to correctly reflect the findings in a condensed or abstracted statement, we deem it best to set forth the findings of the court in full. Omitting the formal parts they are as follows:

"That on the 15th day of January, 1916, the plaintiff was operating an automobile, the property of one Randall, and that about one o'clock of said day he was driving the same westerly on Seventh street, intending to cross said Washington avenue and the lines of railway of the defendant company in a westerly direction. That as he came out of Seventh street onto Washington avenue, and while running his said automobile at about twelve miles per hour, and when about forty-five or fifty feet easterly of the west track of the defendant company, he looked northerly and saw the interurban car of the defendant, same being the usual interurban car of approximately forty-eight tons weight, and about sixty feet long, approaching, and at a distance of approximately 123 feet. That the plaintiff, while he could have stopped his automobile in about four feet, did not do so, nor look nor otherwise pay attention to such approaching car, but continued in a slightly southwesterly direction across the track upon which the interurban car of the defendant was approaching, and was struck at a point on said Washington avenue about or just immediately south of the south line of said Seventh street. That said automobile driven by the plaintiff was in good repair and condition, and could have been easily stopped by the plaintiff in time to have avoided being struck by such interurban car approaching from the north, at a speed testified to of from twelve to twenty miles an hour, and that by failing to do so, or failing to heed the approaching car, the approach and presence of which he knew, he was struck by the south-bound interurban car of the defendant at a point herein set forth. That the motorman of the defendant company operating its south-bound interurban car, as soon as he discovered the automobile of the plaintiff intending or attempting to cross the railway track in front of the interurban car, immediately applied the brakes on said car and did all in his power to avoid striking the automobile driven by the plaintiff, but that the distance between the point of so discovering the intention of the plaintiff in driving his automobile across the track of the defendant, and the point where the plaintiff entered upon and was crossing said track, was insufficient in which said car could be stopped, and thereby avoid the injury. That from the point where the automobile of the plaintiff was struck by the defendant's south-bound interurban car, and thence southerly, the double tracks of the defendant are approximately six feet apart. That on the easterly track there was approaching from the south a city car, traveling slowly and under control, and being so operated as to pass over the switch just north of said Seventh street, and onto the west track, and after the interurban car had passed said switch going south. That the motorman of said north-bound city car, upon seeing the collision between the interurban car and said automobile immediately applied the brakes to said car and brought the same to a stop as quickly as possible, and within some eight or ten feet, and a point approximately one hundred feet south of said point of first collision. That the south-bound interurban car of the defendant, having struck and caught the automobile of the plaintiff in front and on the easterly side of said interurban car, pushed or dragged the automobile southerly and along and between the two tracks of the defendant, and against and along the side of the north-bound city car, to a point of stopping, about one hundred feet south of the place of the first collision, and that when stopped, the automobile driven by plaintiff was wedged between said interurban car and the rear end of said north-bound city car, and that the injuries complained of and sustained by the...