Noyes v. Schoichiro Katsuno

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PARKER, J.
• Citation: Noyes v. Schoichiro Katsuno, 111 Wash. 529, 191 P. 419 (Wash. 1920)
• Decision Date: 13 July 1920
• Docket Number: 15897.
• Parties: NOYES v. SCHOICHIRO KATSUNO.

191 P. 419

111 Wash. 529

NOYES v. SCHOICHIRO KATSUNO.

No. 15897.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 13, 1920

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Calvin S. Hall, Judge.

Action by Archie B. Noyes against Schoichiro Katsuno. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

William U. Park and Paul S. Dubuar, both of Seattle, for appellant.

Totten & Totten, of Seattle, for respondent.

PARKER J.

Plaintiff Noyes, seeks recovery of damages which he claims to have suffered from injuries to his taxicab automobile, caused by the negligence of Katsuno, in that the latter negligently drove his auto truck, so as to cause it to come into collision with the plaintiff's automobile at the intersection of Brintnall Place and Fifteenth Avenue Northeast in the city of Seattle. A trial in the superior court for King county, sitting without a jury, resulted in findings and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him recovery against the defendant in the sum of $300, from which the defendant has appealed to this court.

Brintnall Place is a street running in a westerly and easterly direction. Fifteenth avenue comes into it from the north. These two streets, in so far as the general course of travel thereon is concerned, are much like one continuous street, with a bend at the place in question forming an angle of about 100 degrees. The paved roadway of Brintnall Place, at and just east of the intersection, is 38 feet wide. The pavel roadway of Fifteenth avenue is 25 feet wide. At the time in question respondent Noyes was driving his automobile westerly along Brintnall Place, approaching Fifteenth avenue with a view to turning north in that avenue. He was returning from a funeral, and had several passengers in his automobile. His automobile and the truck of appellant being driven by himself, came into collision in the intersection of the two streets.

Respondent claims that he was driving at the rate of 7 or 8 miles per hour close to the curb of Brintnall Place, and well within the north half of the paved roadway, when he approached the northeasterly corner of the street intersection; that when he arrived within a few feet of the corner he saw appellant's truck coming at a high rate of speed, 20 or 25 miles per hour, turning from Fifteenth avenue into Brintnall Place, and cutting across the corner directly towards his (respondent's) automobile; that it instantly became apparent to him that there was going to be a collision between the two automobiles, unless he turned either to the right or to the left; that he could not turn to the right and escape the impending collision, because there would not be room between the curb and the course of appellant's truck to safely pass and avoid such collision; that, finding himself and his passengers in such a position of sudden peril, he turned his machine to the left and stepped on the accelerator, with a view to speeding up and allowing the truck to pass to his right, the course which it was manifestly taking at such a high rate of speed; that appellant an instant later turned to his right, and the two machines came together on the south side of the roadway, not far from the south curb thereof. This is the substance of respondent's version of the accident as told in his testimony. It is corroborated in most of its material particulars by one of his passengers, who seems to have been a distinterested witness.

Appellant claims that his truck was at no time east or north of the center line of either of the two streets, and that, had respondent merely continued on his course, there would have been no collision, though he claims that respondent's automobile was much further to the south--that is, towards respondent's left--than he claims.

We think the evidence was such as to warrant the trial...