Guignon v. Campbell
Citation | 141 P. 1031,80 Wash. 543 |
Decision Date | 22 July 1914 |
Docket Number | 11939. |
Parties | GUIGNON v. CAMPBELL et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman Judge.
Action by Ella Guignon against Anna S. L. Campbell and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed, and new trial granted unless plaintiff files a remittitur.
John A Coleman, of Everett, and Hughes, McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey and Trefethen & Grinstead, all of Seattle, for appellants.
Walter S. Fulton, of Seattle, for respondent.
The plaintiff seeks recovery of damages for personal injuries which she claims resulted to her from the negligent operation of an automobile by the defendant Archie Campbell, the son and agent of the defendant Anna S. L. Campbell. The trial resulted in verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff against both of the defendants in the sum of $9,250, from which they have appealed.
Appellant Anna S. L. Campbell is a member of a community consisting of herself and husband, maintaining their home in Seattle. Appellant Archie Campbell is a son of Mrs. Campbell, and a member of her family. Mrs. Campbell owns an automobile, it being her separate property. The automobile, by Mrs Campbell's consent, is used for, and by, the family in the usual manner of family conveyances. It is driven by different members of the family, including Archie Campbell. On April 5, 1913, Mrs. Campbell was absent from her home in Seattle; but, with her approval, given before her departure her daughter, a member of the family, gave to some friends, at their home, a luncheon. To assist in the work of the luncheon, an extra servant was procured for the day, and, during the evening, it became necessary to convey this servant to a street car that she might return to her home. Archie Campbell, at the request of the daughter, his sister, then proceeded with the servant to the street car in his mother's automobile. Mrs. Campbell, being absent at the time, knew nothing of this particular use of the automobile; but that it was such use of her automobile as she contemplated might be made seems quite plain. The automobile had been put to general family use at her instance before her departure, and she says in her testimony:
While appellant Archie Campbell was driving the servant to the street car, the automobile ran over respondent, because of his negligent driving, as is now claimed, inflicting serious injury upon respondent for which she seeks recovery in this action.
Contention is made that the cause should have been disposed of in favor of appellants as a matter of law by the trial court upon their motions for directed verdict. In so far as their motions involve the questions of the negligence of Archie Campbell and the contributory negligence of respondent, we deem it sufficient to say that a reading of the evidence convinces us that neither could have been decided as a matter of law, and were clearly questions of fact to be determined by the jury. We do not feel called upon to review the evidence in detail here.
The principal contention made by counsel in behalf of appellant Anna S. L. Campbell is that she is not liable to a judgment for damages against her separately, as is the effect of the verdict and judgment here rendered, and that the court should have so decided as a matter of law. We have seen that Mrs Campbell was the owner of the automobile as her separate property; that she authorized its use by her children for family purposes; and that this particular use was clearly within that contemplated by Mrs. Campbell. The question of the liability of a father, flowing from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hays v. Hogan
...v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277, 146 N. W. 1091, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 970; Ploetz v. Holt (1913) 124 Minn. 169, 144 N. W. 745; Guignon v. Campbell, 80 Wash. 543, 141 Pac. 1031; Switzer v. Sherwood, 80 Wash. 19, 141 Pac. 181, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 216; Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 Pac. 1020,......
-
Boes v. Howell
...v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277, 146 N. W. 1091, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 970; Ploetz v. Holt (1913) 124 Minn. 169, 144 N. W. 745; Guignon v. Campbell, 80 Wash. 543, 141 Pac. 1031; Switzer v. Sherwood, 80 Wash. 19, 141 Pac. 181, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 216; Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 Pac. 1020,......
-
Boes v. Howell
...v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277, 146 N.W. 1091, 51 L.R.A. (N. S.) 970; Ploetz v. Holt (1913) 124 Minn. 169, 144 N.W. 745; Guignon v. Campbell, 80 Wash. 543, 141 P. 1031; Switzer v. Sherwood, 80 Wash. 19, 141 P. 181, Ann.Cas. 1917A, 216; Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 P. 1020, 50 L.R.A. ......
-
Hays v. Hogan
...269; Smith v. Jordan, 211 Mass. 296; Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 970; Plotz v. Holt, 124 Minn. 169; Gignon v. Campbell, 80 Wash, 543; Switzer v. Sherwood, 80 Wash. 19; Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 59; Allen v. Bland, 168 S.W. 35; Hazzard v. Ca......