Goodrich v. May

• Decision Date: 29 April 1927
• Citation: 255 P. 464,121 Or. 418
• Parties: GOODRICH v. MAY et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

255 P. 464

121 Or. 418

GOODRICH v. MAY et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 29, 1927

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Robert Tucker, Judge.

Action by Cora Goodrich, administratrix of the estate of Edward Goodrich, deceased, against Paul H. May and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, certain defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of Edward Goodrich, deceased commenced this action to recover damages resulting from an automobile accident alleged to have been caused through the negligence of defendants. Edward Goodrich, on July 1, 1924 was driving his Ford automobile on the Pacific Highway near Salem, in a northerly direction, and, it is alleged, on the right side of the pavement. Defendants Paul H. May and his wife, Constance May, also driving a Ford car, approached from the rear. It is charged that the defendants, in endeavoring to pass the automobile driven by Goodrich, cut in too close and the right rear wheel of the automobile in which they were riding struck the hub of the left front wheel of the Goodrich car, causing it to swerve off the highway and to upset, and that, as a result thereof, Goodrich sustained injuries from which he died. Defendants, by their answer, denied negligence and, as an affirmative defense, in substance alleged that the death of Goodrich was solely and wholly the result of his own negligence in failing to move from the center of the highway to the right thereof, after proper passing signals had been given by defendants, and in that he carelessly and negligently steered his automobile into defendants' car at the time it was undertaking to pass. The cause was submitted to a jury, and a verdict was returned for plaintiff. Defendants Paul H. May and his wife appeal from the judgment entered against them.

Hugh Montgomery, of Portland (Ridgway, Johnson & Montgomery, of Portland, on the brief), for appellants.

Frank S. Senn, of Portland (Senn & Recken, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

BELT J. (after stating the facts as above).

The sole question for consideration is whether the court erred in sustaining an objection to the following hypothetical question asked of Capt. Lewis, of the Portland police department:

"Q. Now, Captain, it appears from the evidence introduced upon the trial of this case that a car operated by the defendant Paul H. May had the right rear wheel damaged to the extent of a scratch on one spoke, a splintering of the spoke to the left of the one first scratched, and a scratching of the spoke to the left of the one splintered, both of which scratches are close to the rim, where the spoke enters the rim. Based on that evidence, and on your experience in the investigation of automobile accidents, I will ask you whether or not, in your opinion, the injury which I have described to the said wheel could have been caused by that wheel being turned in a right-hand direction from the direction in which it was traveling against another car or wheel traveling in the same direction?"

Prior to the above question, evidence was offered to show that the witness, as an officer in the traffic department of the city of Portland, had many years of experience in investigating the cause of...