McLaughlin v. Shelton Auto Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1926
• Docket Number: 19994.
• Citation: 246 P. 575,139 Wash. 253
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: McLAUGHLIN v. SHELTON AUTO TRANSP. CO. et al.

246 P. 575

139 Wash. 253

McLAUGHLIN v. SHELTON AUTO TRANSP. CO. et al.

No. 19994.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 3, 1926

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; Wilson, Judge.

Action by Alfred E. McLaughlin against the Shelton Auto Transportation Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Frank C. Owings and Vance & Christensen, all of Olympia, for appellants.

Anthony M. Arntson, of Tacoma, and Troy & Yantis, of Olympia, for respondent.

HOLCOMB J.

This action for personal and property damages as against the appellant Shelton Auto Transportation Company a corporation, and for insurance on damages as against appellant Automobile Insurance Exchange, a corporation resulted in a verdict against the transportation company for $7,410, and against the insurance exchange upon the insurance and liability policy in the full sum of the policy for $5,000 as personal damages, and upon the $1,000 property policy for $590 property damages.

A noticed motion by respondent to strike the statement of facts of appellant was confessed upon the argument thereof, and therefore granted; thus leaving the appeal pending upon the record transcript only. That result eliminates the third error claimed by appellants--the excessiveness of the damages awarded by the jury.

The other two errors assigned and argued by appellant insurance exchange are based upon the denial of its motion to dismiss it from the case, or, in the alternative, to strike a certain paragraph from the complaint, and in overruling its demurrer to the complaint. Both assignments raise the same question.

Appellant earnestly and forcefully argues that we should abandon and overrule our former decisions in McCormick v. Index Stages, Inc. (Wash.) 242 P. 1090; Devoto v. United Auto-Transportation Co., 128 Wash. 604, 223 P. 1050, and 130 Wash. 707, 226 P. 1118, and Hayes v. Staples, 129 Wash. 436, 225 P. 417, earnestly insisting that the original decision in the Devoto Case, supra, was based upon an incorrect theory of statutory construction, and the subsequent cases erroneously followed the same incorrect theory. It is insisted that the effect of the holdings of the court in the foregoing cases is so prejudicial to insurance parties in such actions that the cases ought to be overruled and our earlier decisions in certain cases readopted.

We see no reason for receding from the rule adopted in...