Hullin v. Seattle Taxicab Co.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1922
• Docket Number: 16920.
• Citation: 119 Wash. 311,205 P. 403
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HULLIN et al. v. SEATTLE TAXICAB CO.

205 P. 403

119 Wash. 311

HULLIN et al. v. SEATTLE TAXICAB CO.

No. 16920.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 27, 1922

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam, Judge.

Action by Edward Hullin and another, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of the Hullin Transfer Company against the Seattle Taxicab Company. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bogle, Merritt & Bogle, of Seattle, for appellant.

Fred W Catlett, of Seattle, for respondents.

TOLMAN J.

Respondents sue to recover for damages to an automobile truck, owned by them, sustained in a collision with a taxicab belonging to appellant, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the driver of the taxicab. From a verdict against it in the sum of $266.49, and a judgment thereon, appellant brings the case here by appeal.

It appears that at the time in question respondents' truck was proceeding westward on Spring street in the city of Seattle, toward the intersection of that street with Railroad avenue. Spring street, to the east of Railroad avenue, is used largely by commission merchants. Both sides of the street ordina rily are, and at the time in question were occupied by trucks and vehicles backed up to the curb so that one driving a truck through must necessarily drive at about the center of the street. Respondents' truck, heavily loaded, was so driven along the center of spring street. Railroad avenue, which runs north and south, is occupied by a number of lines of railroad track, is paved only with plank laid lengthwise, and vehicular traffic is confined to the portions of the street not at the time used or occupied by moving trains or stationary cars. Appellant's taxicab was proceeding north toward Spring street on Railroad avenue from three to five feet west of a line of box cars which extended all the way to Spring street, and cut off the view of each of these drivers of the other. Respondents' truck was admittedly the first to reach the intersection, and also admittedly encroached upon the left half of Spring street the extent of such encroachment being sharply disputed. It was proceeding very slowly on account of the character of its load and the roughness of the street caused by the railroad tracks over which it was passing. As it proceeded due west sufficiently to permit the drivers of the two vehicles, looking past the box cars, to see each other the appellant's taxicab was still distant from the intersection 65 feet, and traveling in excess of 40 miles per hour, according to the testimony of the driver of the truck, or 30 feet, and traveling at the rate of 18 or 19 miles per hour, according to the testimony of the taxi driver. The testimony regarding the unsuccessful efforts of each of them to then avoid the collision does not clarify or change the questions now presented, and need not be detailed.

It is first urged that the trial court erred in giving an instruction as follows:

'The ordinance provides that drivers approaching a street intersection shall look out for and give right of way to vehicles on their right simultaneously approaching a given point.

'The proper construction of this ordinance is that a vehicle entering a street intersection first has the right of way over one subsequently entering the intersection, but, if they enter the intersection simultaneously or at the same time, then it will be the duty of the driver of the vehicle having the other vehicle on his right to give the right of way to the other vehicle.

'In this case, if you should find that the plaintiffs' truck and defendant's taxicab entered the street intersection simultaneously, then it will be the duty of the driver of the taxicab to give the right of way to the truck, as the

...