Norris v. Hadfield

• Citation: 213 P. 934,124 Wash. 198
• Decision Date: 27 March 1923
• Docket Number: 17661.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: NORRIS v. HADFIELD et ux.

213 P. 934

124 Wash. 198

NORRIS v. HADFIELD et ux.

No. 17661.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 27, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Walter M. French, Judge.

Action by Carl A. Norris against Earl A. Hadfield and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Murphy & Kumm, of Seattle, for appellant.

Poe Falknor & Falknor, of Seattle, for respondents.

HOLCOMB J.

This action for damages arose out of the same automobile accident as the case of Shanley v. Hadfield, 213 P. 932, just filed. The principal facts are there related. A car belonging to this appellant was standing 8 or 10 feet west of the paved portion of the Pacific Highway, and 20 feet south of the combination building comprising the gasoline station, cigar stand, and dance hall. The emergency brakes were set on the car of appellant, and the tail light was burning. The car of respondent, which was a Pierce-Arrow stage as was said in the preceding case, was running in a southerly direction from Seattle to Tacoma. The night was clear and the pavement dry.

This case was tried before the court without a jury, and at the close of the testimony the trial court dismissed the action. At the conclusion of the evidence the superior court said:

'The facts in this case are not in dispute particularly that the car at the time that it hit the pedestrian, I believe that the consensus of opinion, the consensus of all of the testimony, would be that it was running somewhere about 18 to 30 miles an hour. I fail to see that it makes any material difference at what rate of speed it was running whether 18 or 30 miles. The stage driver, Mr. Hadfield, the defendant, said that he saw this pedestrian as he stepped off the step and saw him step across the paved portion of the highway; that at the rate of speed at which the machine was running, the pedestrian had plenty of time to pass in front of the car, and had already passed in front of the car; that he sounded no signal; that he (that is, the pedestrian) suddenly jumped back in front of his car. * * * All the parties on both sides agree to this--that without warning this pedestrian stepped back; that if he had not stepped back he never would have been been hit, the machine would have cleared him, and there would have been no accident of any kind. He became confused for some reason; I do not know what it was that caused it, but all of the witnesses agree to that. Mr. Hadfield says that, when this man turned back, then he swerved his car, seeing the plaintiff's car, the Liberty, standing there, knowing that he was--when off the pavement that he was going to hit the car. I asked one question because I did not know whether the record showed that or not; but counsel have agreed that the brick pavement at that point is practically level with the ground where this car was standing. * * * I will state frankly that I can see no negligence, no acts of negligence, no positive acts of negligence, on the part of Mr. Hadfield, excepting that which arises from the fact that he went off the highway and hit a car that was standing off the highway where it had an absolute right to be. The question of speed I paid very little attention to, because, while there is a little dispute between 20 and 30 miles an hour, I do not see that it makes any real difference whether he was running at 20 or 30 miles an hour. Mr. Hadfield, at the time that he swerved and hit the pedestrian, it is a matter of common knowledge, as he was then only 25 feet from the Liberty car under all the testimony, he could not have stopped that Pierce-Arrow car in any event; if he had had all the brakes that are ever placed on a machine, he could not have stopped his machine; when it was headed that way it had to go on and hit the Liberty.'

In this case certain things were admitted. First, respondent's automobile stage was traveling south. The pedestrian, Shanley was traveling east across the highway at a point only a few feet either north or south of the entrance to the dance hall. The south side of the dance hall was 20 feet south of this entrance. Second, appellant's car was standing 20 feet south of the south side of the dance hall, and 8 to 10 feet off the pavement, so appellant's car was approximately 40 feet south and 8 to 10 feet west of the place where the stage collided with Shanley. Third, respondent Hadfield is the only witness who contradicts the...