Lewis v. Seattle Taxicab Co.

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FULLERTON, J. MORRIS, J.
• Citation: Lewis v. Seattle Taxicab Co., 72 Wash. 320, 130 P. 341 (Wash. 1913)
• Decision Date: 28 February 1913
• Parties: LEWIS v. SEATTLE TAXICAB CO.

130 P. 341

72 Wash. 320

LEWIS v. SEATTLE TAXICAB CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 28, 1913

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam Judge.

Action by Gustave Lewis against the Seattle Taxicab Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Brightman & Tennant, of Seattle, for appellant.

Chas M. Fouts, of Seattle, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent was struck by an automobile driven by a chauffeur of the appellant, and received injuries for which he recovered in the court below. In this court but one principal question is urged in the argument, namely: Was the respondent guilty of negligence contributing to his injury?

The respondent was injured while on Yesler Way in the city of Seattle as a point near the junction of the Way and James street. At this place cars from various parts of the city have a common track, and stop there to receive and discharge passengers.

The respondent approached the place at about 5:15 o'clock in the evening intending to take a car for his home. There were two cars then standing on the car tracks, neither of which were bound for the vicinity of his residence, and he waited the approach of the proper car. Shortly thereafter his car was seen approaching, and he alternately looked at it and at the cars then standing on the street to see whether the latter moved out before the other car approached, as it made a difference as to the place his car would stop whether the cars then on the track remained there or moved out before his car arrived. Finally concluding that the car would stop further down the street than its usual stopping place, he started in that direction, walking diagonally across the street from the place where he left the sidewalk. He had gone perhaps 15 feet and was probably 10 feet from the sidewalk when he was knocked down by the appellant's automobile, which approached him from behind. He testified that before leaving the sidewalk for the street he looked in the direction from which the automobile approached, and that in looking at the standing street cars his field of vision naturally took in its line of approach but failed to see it, and that he did not again look in that direction after leaving the walk before he was struck by the automobile. The jury, however, in answer to special interrogatories returned with their general verdict, found that he could have seen the automobile prior to leaving the sidewalk had he glanced in the direction from which it was approaching, and also that after he left the sidewalk and prior to being struck there was nothing to prevent him from seeing the approaching automobile had he looked in that direction. The evidence was conflicting on the question whether or not any alarm was sounded as the automobile approached the respondent; and in conflict also as to the distance the car was from the respondent at the time he left the walk, and as to the speed at which it was running. There was, however, evidence in the record from which the jury could have found that no alarm was sounded, and that the automobile was upwards of 75 feet from the respondent when he left the walk, and that it was running at a speed of from 8 to 12 miles an hour.

The appellant does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury on the question of the negligence of the chauffeur, but contends that the act of the respondent in stepping into the street and staring across the same without looking for approaching automobiles or looking so carelessly as to fail to see one approaching him at a distance of 75 feet, was such negligence as to prohibit a recovery on his part on the doctrine of contributory negligence. But it has seemed to us that the trial judge rightfully submitted the question to the jury. The respondent did not step...