Melior v. Burk
| Decision Date | 20 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | 18761. |
| Citation | 133 Wash. 95,233 P. 295 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | MELIOR et al. v. BURK. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Clarke County; Simpson, Judge.
Action by Gladys Melior and husband against P.J. Burk. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions.
Crass & Hardin, of Vancouver, for appellant.
James P. Stapleton and Davis & Farrell, all of Portland, Or., for respondents.
Gladys Melior and her husband (the latter being hereinafter spoken of as the respondent) brought this action to recover for personal injuries received by her in an automobile collision at the intersection of Hancock street and Sandy boulevard in the city of Portland, Or. The collision occurred about the middle of an afternoon. From a verdict and judgment against the defendant, P.J. Burk, he has appealed.
The essential and controlling facts are plain. Sandy boulevard is a wide street. It runs in a northeasterly and southwesterly direction. It has upon it two street car tracks, one on each side and near the center of the street. Hancock street is not so wide, being 24 feet between the curbs. It runs east and west. At or near the intersection of these two streets another one, called East Forty-Third street, 24 feet between the curbs, intersects both of the other two streets. Its center line is some 20 or 30 feet east of the crossing of the center lines of the other two streets. East Forty-Third street runs north and south crossing Hancock street at right angles. Appellant, Burk, was going east traveling on his right-hand or the south side of Hancock street. Respondent with his wife was driving their car on the northerly street car track on Sandy boulevard, his car being driven immediately over the two rails of that street car track. They were going southwesterly. Upon entering what may be termed the common intersection of all three streets, or more accurately upon reaching the east marginal line of East Forty-Third street extended across Sandy boulevard, the respondent traveling southwesterly had a clear view west on Hancock street for approximately 200 feet and observed the appellant coming east on the south side of Hancock street at an excessive rate of speed which the respondent testified was maintained until the collision occurred. At the same time of that observation respondent noticed a street car approaching from the southwest, something more than 200 feet distant, on the southerly street car track which paralleled the one along which he was driving. There was no other traffic on the streets, in the vicinity. It will be observed that as the respondents were going southwesterly appellant coming from the west, was obliquely approaching, on respondents' right, a point at which their two lines would cross. Neither gave the other any signal of intention to change his course, and neither did change his course unless possibly just at the time of or too late to avoid the collision. Respondent testified that upon entering the street intersection he was traveling 12 to 15 miles an hour, the speed limit being 12 miles within the intersection, but that upon observing the oncoming of appellant's car he slowed down to 3 miles at the time of the collision. But it is made perfectly plain by the respondent's testimony that in his course he never budged from his line of travel over the two street car rails of the northerly track, and that the collision occurred at a point on that line just a few feet south of and on appellant's right-hand side of the center line of Hancock street. As a result of the collision, respondent's car was bumped onto or near the southerly street car track, and in a moment the street car occupying that track unavoidably struck respondent's car, all together causing the injuries complained of. The situation was a plain one, and the rights and duties of the parties definitely fixed by the law.
The accident happened in Oregon, but that state has a law, proven in this case by the respondents, as follows:
'(8) Vehicles Having Right of Way.--At all intersections the vehicle approaching the intersection from the right of any other vehicle approaching the intersection shall have the right of way excepting as to emergency vehicles, street * * * cars,' etc. Section 4773, Olson's 1920 Code.
An ordinance of the city of Portland to the same effect as the general statute of that state was considered by the Supreme Court of Oregon in the case of Johnson v. Underwood et al., 102 Or. 680, 203 P. 879, approving an instruction of the trial court to a jury, which instruction was as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial