Miller v. Asbury, 28444.
Citation | 125 P.2d 652,13 Wn.2d 533 |
Decision Date | 13 May 1942 |
Docket Number | 28444. |
Parties | MILLER v. ASBURY et ux. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Action by Chrystal Miller, as administratrix of the estate of Albert Miller, deceased, against H. M. Asbury and wife for the death of plaintiff's deceased resulting from an automobile collision at highway intersection. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Judgment reversed and action ordered dismissed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Dolph Barnett, Judge.
Shank Belt, Rode & Cook, of Seattle, for appellants.
Forest & Forest, Bonsted & Nichoson, and F. C. Palmer, Jr., all of Yakima, for respondent.
This action arose out of an automobile collision at the intersection of Fort Simcoe road and Lateral 'A' highway, seven miles west of Toppenish. The driver of one of the cars, Albert Miller, twenty-three years of age, received injuries from which he died. His widow recovered a verdict for $1,713.45.
The Asburys appeal, contending that the court erred in refusing to grant their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Fort Simcoe road is a black top arterial highway, surfaced twenty feet in width, extending in an easterly and westerly direction. Lateral 'A' highway is graveled, twenty feet in width, and extends in a northerly and southerly direction, intersecting the Fort Simcoe road at right angles. The intersection is wholly unobstructed by buildings, bushes or other objects. Near the southeast corner of the intersection, thirty feet from the south edge of the black top, is a stop sign.
On July 20, 1940, appellant Asbury was driving east on the Fort Simcoe road and approaching the intersection. Miller, with a companion, Albert Messe, was driving north on Lateral 'A,' approaching the same intersection. The two cars came into collision. The point of impact, according to the testimony most favorable to respondent, was several feet north and east of the exact center of the intersection. Miller's car was struck on the left-hand side near the middle, made three complete turns, and came to rest in a ditch on the right-hand side of Lateral 'A' highway, forty-five feet north of the point of impact. Asbury's car made one and one-half turns and came to rest on the south side of the Fort Simcoe road, one hundred and five feet east of the point of impact.
Messe was the principal witness for respondent. He had lived with Miller's mother and stepfather for eight years. Miller and Messe had worked together a great deal of that period, and at the moment were returning from a threshing job.
Officer Tull, of the state patrol, testified that, on the night of the accident, Messe told him, at the hospital, that they approached the intersection at a speed of eight miles per hour. A month less one day after that, Messe made a statement in the state patrol office, which was reduced to writing and signed by him, he swearing Before a notary: 'That I have read the foregoing statement and believe it to be a true and impartial statement of facts.'
The statement is in evidence as Exhibit '14', and reads, in part, as follows:
At the trial, Messe reiterated that he had falsely stated to Mr. Forrest, one of respondent's counsel, that Miller had come to a complete stop Before entering the arterial. He also testified that, when he signed the affidavit stating that Miller slowed down to 'four or five miles an hour,' he was nervous, and that, in fact, Miller slowed down to 'one to three miles an hour.' To this estimate he clung firmly through a searching cross-examination, and this will be considered his evidence on that point in our consideration of the question presented for decision.
Messe further testified that, as the front wheels of their car arrived at the south edge of the black top, it was proceeding at from three to four miles per hour, and that, at that instant, when its front wheels were just starting to go on the black top, he saw the Asbury car, abreast of a road sign, coming toward them at at least seventy miles per hour. This sign was, by actual measurement, 315 feet from the intersection. He had stated in the affidavit that, at the moment of impact, the Miller car was past the middle of the intersection. At the trial, he testified that the rear two feet of it were still south of the center line of the Fort road.
After the respondent's case was in, Fred Wright, an eyewitness of the accident, was discovered by her attorneys, and, upon their motion, the respondent's case was reopened and his testimony taken. Wright testified that he was working in a field about an eighth of a mile from the scene of the accident, and that the Asbury car approached the intersection at seventy-five miles per hour; that he first saw it when it was opposite a small shack which proved, upon measurement, to be two hundred feet from the intersection. He described the movement of the Miller car as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tobias v. Rainwater
...the disfavored driver's failure to yield the right of way at the intersection would constitute negligence Per se (Miller v. Asbury, 1942, 13 Wash.2d 533, 125 P.2d 652), even though the resultant collision occurs outside the bounds of the intersection. Bos v. Dufault, 1953, 42 Wash.2d 641, 2......
-
Langer v. Auto Interurban Co.
... ... 114 P.2d 1004.' ... [28 ... Wn.2d 351] We followed the above rule in Miller v ... Asbury, 13 Wash.2d 533, 125 P.2d 652, and Bleiler v ... Wolff, 23 Wash.2d ... ...
-
Stallinger v. Johnson
... ... ( Gudelsky v. Boone, (Md. 1942) 23 A.2d 694 at 696; ... Miller v. Asbury, (Wash. 1942) 13 Wn.2d 533, 125 ... P.2d 652 at 654; Emanuel v. Wise, (Wash. 1941); ... ...
-
Cameron v. Goree
...and yielding to him the right of way in the event that a collision would otherwise occur. We quote the following from Miller v. Asbury, 13 Wash.2d 533, 125 P.2d 652: "The purpose of the statute is to prevent just such accidents as that described by the evidence in this case, Arterial highwa......