Marton v. Pickrell

• Decision Date: 09 August 1920
• Docket Number: 15867.
• Citation: 112 Wash. 117,191 P. 1101
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: MARTON et ux. v. PICKRELL et ux.

191 P. 1101

112 Wash. 117

MARTON et ux. v. PICKRELL et ux.

No. 15867.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 9, 1920

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke, Judge.

Action by Frank Marton and wife against W. B. Pickrell and wife. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Lee & Kimball, of Spokane, for appellants.

John L Dirks, of Spokane, for respondents.

TOLMAN J.

A public highway, with a paved roadway 20 feet wide, known as the 'Apple Way,' runs east from the city of Spokane and is extensively traveled, during the usual hours, both by vehicles and pedestrians. About 6 o'clock in the evening of January 23, 1919, respondent, with a companion, was walking eastward along this highway towards his home at Opportunity, and at that time of the year it was then quite dark. For a time they traveled along the right side or southerly edge of the pavement, but at that hour the travel was mostly from Spokane towards the east, and many automobiles approached and passed them from behind, while but few machines were traveling in the opposite direction. Observing this condition respondent and his companion passed to the north or left side of the paved roadway, and pursued their course along the northerly side of the pavement, the companion walking near the edge, and respondent beside him some 3 feet from the edge of the pavement. While so proceeding they observed the headlights of appellant's automobile approaching from the east, when, as they estimate the distance, it was about 90 feet from them, and appellant testified that he saw them clearly in the light of an automobile coming from the west when they were about 125 feet from him. Upon seeing the approaching car, respondent's companion stepped off the pavement to the north, while respondent stepped to the south toward the center of the roadway, intending, as they had done immediately before when meeting another automobile, to let appellant's car pass between them. As respondent stepped toward the center of the roadway, he continually watched the approaching headlights, and observed that appellant's car also turned toward the center of the roadway as it approached. He then took two quick jumps, as he expresses it, toward the south, to avoid the approaching car, but it also turned still more in the same direction, and he was struck by the right front end of the machine, the collision occurring at a point about midway between the center and south edge of the pavement, and respondent receiving the injuries complained of. From a verdict and judgment against him, appellant brings the case here on appeal.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was interposed at the close of plaintiff's case, and overruled, and at the close of the entire case the motion was renewed, and again denied. The same question was raised by a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

Appellant bases his argument in support of this point upon...