Knight v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 25 January 1924
• Docket Number: 18029.
• Citation: 222 P. 471,128 Wash. 246
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: KNIGHT et ux. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

222 P. 471

128 Wash. 246

KNIGHT et ux. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

No. 18029.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 25, 1924

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Frater, Judge.

Action by Charles F. Knight and Claudine Knight, his wife, against the City of Seattle, a municipal corporation. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed, with instructions.

Thomas J. L. Kennedy and Edwin C. Ewing, both of Seattle, for appellant.

Allen &amp Griffith, of Seattle, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

This is an appeal by the city of Seattle from a judgment rendered against it on the verdict of a jury in an action by the respondents to recover for personal injuries.

Third avenue in the city named is a street running approximately north and south. It is crossed at right angles by Madison street. On each of the streets are double tracks of the city's municipal street railway lines. The respondent Claudine Knight approached the street intersection riding on a street car traveling south on Third avenue, intending to transfer to an east-bound car on Madison street. The car on which she was riding stopped at the north intersection of Madison street. The cars going east on that street traveled on the south track and stopped for the purpose of taking on passengers on the east side of the street, and the respondent to reach that place was obligated to cross both of the streets. On alighting from the Third avenue car, the respondent went west to the sidewalk, thence south across Madison street, and from thence proceeded east across Third avenue. As she approached the first track on that avenue, she was struck by a street car traveling south on that track, was knocked down, and severely injured. The respondent testified that on leaving the sidewalk to cross the avenue she looked north and saw the car which struck her standing on the north side of Madison street; that she gave it no further heed until she got near the street car track sufficiently close to be struck by a passing car, when she again looked and saw the car 'right upon her'; and that she then attempted to escape it, but was unable to do so. She testified that she heard no bell or other warning given of the approach of the car. The accident occurred at 5:45 p. m. in the evening of February 7, 1922. The respondent described the evening as dusky, and somewhat stormy, although not dark. Objects were plainly visible, and she could plainly see the street car across the street some 60 or 70 feet distant. She also testified that there were no automobiles, and but little other traffic, on the street at the time. There is no evidence of excessive speed on the part of the street car. On the contrary, the evidence is that it proceeded in the usual manner. While the evidence of the motorman is that he saw the respondent leave the curb and move towards the street car track, his evidence also is that she was walking in the usual manner and not hurriedly that he sounded his gong when the car started to move across the street, and sounded it continuously until the respondent was struck; that he thought from the respondent's movements that she would stop before reaching a place of danger, and that he acted upon that assumption until he discovered that she would not; that he then applied the emergency brakes on the car and stopped within 2 feet although too late to prevent striking the respondent. The motorman was corroborated as to his overt acts not only by the conductor...