Newbury v. Remington, 25815.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | 25815. |
| Citation | 52 P.2d 312,184 Wash. 665 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEWBURY v. REMINGTON et ux. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Malcolm Douglas, Judge.
Action by Kenneth C. Newbury against A. D. Remington and June H Remington, his wife. From refusal of the court to enter judgment against the marital community of A. D. Remington and his wife, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John J Kennett, of Seattle, for appellant.
Carkeek McDonald & Harris, of Seattle, for respondents.
This action was brought by Kenneth C. Newbury to recover judgment against A. D. Remington and against the marital community consisting of A. D. Remington and June H Remington, his wife, on account of property damages and personal injuries and suffering caused by an assault and battery inflicted upon him by A. D. Remington.
The trial resulted in findings of fact from which the ocurt concluded and entered judgment in the sum of $1,000 and costs against A. D. Remington.
The plaintiff, being satisfied with the findings of fact made and filed by the trial court, has appealed because the trial court refused to conclude and enter judgment against the marital community of A. D. Remington and his wife.
It appears by the findings of fact that the appellant, Newbury while driving an automobile southerly on 35th Avenue N. E., in Seattle, overtook an automobile belonging to Remington and wife going in the same direction and driven by A. D. Remington. Appellant attempted to pass the automobile belonging to the Remingtons, and for a distance of several blocks Remington, by turning his car to his left at times, so drove it as to prevent appellant from passing, and on several occasions abruptly slowed down his car so as to require appellant to act quickly to avoid a collision, during all of which time A. D. Remington, and another man riding with him, were making gestures of various kinds to the appellant. Appellant finally overtook and passed respondent's car while it was stopped at a street intersection, and, after appellant had gone a short distance further, respondent drove his automobile alongside appellant's automobile and ordered appellant to stop, and upon appellant's refusal to stop respondent husband turned his car to the right so as to force appellant to drive off the pavement to avoid a collision. It was further found: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
deElche v. Jacobsen, 46715-3
...which seldom has anything to do with the motivation of the defendant or injury to the plaintiff. For example see Newbury v. Remington, 184 Wash. 665, 52 P.2d 312 (1935), in which an assault was held to be separate although it arose out of driving the community automobile while returning fro......
-
Furuheim v. Floe
...309, 166 P. 634; Olive Co. v. Meek, 103 Wash. 467, 175 P. 33.' Bergman v. State (Wash.) 60 P.2d 699, 701. See, also, Newbury v. Remington, 184 Wash. 665, 52 P.2d 312. judgment is affirmed as to appellant husband individually. The judgment is reversed and the action dismissed as to the appel......
-
Howe v. Haught
...of her husband's subsequent aggression. We see no distinction between the facts of this case and those in Newbury v. Remington, 184 Wash. 665, 52 P.2d 312 (1935), where the defendant-husband, driving with his wife, forced the plaintiff-motorist to stop, got out of the car and assaulted the ......
-
Keene v. Edie
...or community has been based on distinctions without a difference." deElche, 95 Wash.2d at 240, 622 P.2d 835. In Newbury v. Remington, 184 Wash. 665, 52 P.2d 312 (1935), for example, an assault was held to be a separate tort, although the defendant was driving the community vehicle. The ruli......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Bender,18 Wn.2d 243, 138 P.2d 864 (1943): 3.2(14)(b) Neukirch v.Wong, 195 Wash. 451, 81 P.2d 499 (1938): 6.5(3) Newbury v.Remington, 184 Wash. 665, 52 P.2d 312 (1935): 6.3(2)(e) Nichols HillsBank v. McCool, 104 Wn.2d 78, 701 P.2d 1114 (1985): 4.2, 4.6, 4.10, 6.2(2)(c), 6.2(5), 6.3(3) Nic......
-
§6.3 Tort Liability
...the courts have refused to stretch these rules to find community liability. The following cases are illustrative: Newbury v. Remington, 184 Wash. 665, 52 P.2d 312 (1935). After the defendant, while operating the family vehicle, forced the plaintiff s vehicle off the road, the defendant left......
-
Deelche v. Jacobsen: Recovery from Community Property for a Separate Tort Judgment
...67. The deElche opinion suggests this possibility. 95 Wash. 2d at 245, 622 P.2d at 840. Presumably, a case such as Newbury v. Remington, 184 Wash. 665, 52 P.2d 312 (1935), may be decided differently after deElche. In Newbury, the tort was held separate because the spouse "alighted from the ......
-
In Good Times and in Debt: the Evolution of Marital Agency and the Meaning of Marriage
...the same court held that liability from an assault in the course of driving the family car was a separate debt. Newbury v. Remington, 52 P.2d 312, 313 (Wash. 1935). See generally DE FUNIAK and VAUGHN, supra note 73, § 161, at 382 (noting that the issue of creditor recourse to community prop......