Lampe v. Jacobsen

• Decision Date: 29 June 1907
• Citation: 90 P. 654,46 Wash. 533
• Parties: LAMPE v. JACOBSEN.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

90 P. 654

46 Wash. 533

LAMPE v. JACOBSEN.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 29, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. E. Morris, Judge.

Action by A. G. Lampe against Anthony Jacobsen. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Granger & Magill, for appellant.

H. E Foster, for respondent.

ROOT J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries occasioned by a collision between plaintiff and an automobile driven by a servant of appellant. From a judgment for $1,000 in favor of plaintiff, this appeal is prosecuted.

While there is much conflict in the evidence as to certain details yet the substantial facts were about these: Plaintiff was on the sidewalk on the east side of First avenue, at its intersection with Marion street, in the city of Seattle. First avenue runs north and south, or approximately so. He walked north along the sidewalk some 20 or 30 feet from the corner, and then stepped into the street, and started in a northwesterly direction, diagonally across First avenue. After taking a few steps from the sidewalk, he was struck by defendant's automobile, which was going in a northerly or northeasterly direction. The evidence varies as to the distance plaintiff had traveled after leaving the sidewalk. Some of defendant's witnesses stated it to be four or five steps. Some of plaintiff's thought it a little more. One said he had nearly reached the street car track, near the center of the street.

Some fixed the distance from the edge of the sidewalk as 4 or 5 feet. Others as 10 or 12. One witness thought it about 30. There was also a difference in the evidence as to the distance from the sidewalk of the approaching automobile. Some fixed the distance as 4 or 5 feet, and others said that it was a greater distance; some saying it was near the car tracks. There was also a conflict as to the speed of the automobile, the driver thereof fixing it at 4 or 5 miles an hour, while others placed at as high as 10 or 12. A city ordinance limited the speed to 8 miles per hour. Respondent claims that there was no horn sounded or other warning given of the approach of the automobile, and in this he is corroborated by several witnesses. The chauffeur testified that he sounded the horn when approaching Marion street, which crosses First avenue a short distance south of where the accident occurred. He says that plaintiff walked directly in front of his machine, and he did not see him until within four or five feet, and it was then too late to stop. Another of defendant's witnesses testified that he was experienced in the handling of automobiles, and that such a machine driven at the rate of six miles an hour could be stopped within a distance of six inches. First avenue at the place where this collision occurred runs through the business portion of the city, and is commonly occupied by large numbers of pedestrians. At the street crossings there is no difference in the pavement from that which extends the full distance of the blocks between the crossings, and it is customary for people to walk across the street at any place. The evidence of the witnesses for both parties shows that there was no obstruction in the street between the point where plaintiff stepped from the sidewalk and the place where the automobile was at that time. One witness testified that the chauffeur could have seen plaintiff at least for six or eight paces before his machine struck him. Plaintiff testifies that,...