Onkels v. Stogsdill

Decision Date14 March 1929
Docket Number21674.
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesONKELS v. STOGSDILL et ux.

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John A. Frater, Judge.

Action by O. M. Onkels against C. S. Stogsdill and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Roberts, Skeel & Holman and Frank Hunter, all of Seattle, for appellants.

Samuel B. Bassett, of Seattle, for respondent.

BEALS J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against defendants on account of injuries sufered by him and damage to his automobile as the result of a collision with defendants' automobile, the circumstances surrounding the accident being as follows Plaintiff resides on the west side of the North Trunk road between Seattle and Everett. A private roadway leads from his garage to the highway which it reaches about 300 feet south of a crossroad. In front of plaintiff's property the highway is approximately 90 feet wide, the paved portion thereof being approximately 20 feet in width. On the forenoon of April 13 1928, plaintiff was driving from Seattle northerly to his home. As he approached the roadway leading to his garage he drove his car off the paved portion of the highway onto the right-hand shoulder of the road, and allowed some traffic which had been following him to pass. He then turned to his left across the highway, and just as his car was leaving the paved portion of the road, or shortly thereafter, a collision occurred between his car and that owned by defendants which was proceeding south. Plaintiff's car was damaged, and he suffered injuries to his person consisting of a broken rib and a cut on his head, besides bruises from which he suffered pain and inconvenience for some time following the accident.

To the complaint defendants answered with denials and an affirmative plea of contributory negligence on plaintiff's part. The trial of the action to a jury resulted in a verdict in plaintiff's favor in the sum of $1,500, from which defendants appeal.

No error is assigned upon either the admission of evidence or the instructions to the jury. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in overruling their challenge to the sufficiency of respondent's testimony to support a verdict, in denying appellants' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, in overruling appellants' motion for a new trial, and in entering judgment upon the verdict in favor of respondent. These assignments of error will be considered together.

Respondent's home fronts on a portion of the highway which is straight for approximately 1,000 feet, and it is undoubtedly the law that respondent in undertaking to make a left-hand turn and cross the highway at a point other than a roadway intersection is held to the exercise of extraordinary care and caution for the preservation of his own safety and to avoid injury to others traveling upon the highway. When respondent turned to his left he placed appellants' automobile on his right and appellants' machine thereby acquired such benefit as would attach to the enjoyment of the right of way. Respondent testified that he saw appellants' car as he turned, but thought he had plenty of time to cross the road in safety. It is not contended that appellants' car was proceeding at an unlawful rate of speed, the testimony concerning its speed placing it rather under than over the permitted rate. Respondent testified that appellants' car did not moderate its speed, and that just as respondent's car was leaving the highway appellants' car turned off the highway, toward respondent, with the result that the two cars collided. Respondent contends that, had the driver of appellants' car kept on the pavement, no collision would have occurred. There was testimony to the effect that the driver of appellants' car was talking to persons in the back seat and was not maintaining a careful lookout...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Fisher v. Reilly
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1956
    ...We will first consider the judicial attitude toward the practice of making left-hand turns between intersections. In Onkels v. Stogsdill, 151 Wash. 194, 275 P. 692, 693, the plaintiff who was driving northerly made a left turn to a private drive, in front of the south-bound car of the defen......
  • Sandberg v. Spoelstra
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1955
    ...to the contrary, the right of a driver to make a left turn at a point other than an intersection was recognized in Onkels v. Stogsdill, 1929, 151 Wash. 194, 275 P. 692. In that case, a judgment for damages in favor of the driver who made such a turn was However, we held in the Onkels case--......
  • Phoenix Baking Company v. Vaught
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1945
    ... ... of "due care" would demand under other ... circumstances. Glick v. Ropes, 18 Wash ... (2d) 260, 138 P.2d 858; Onkels v ... Stogsdill, 151 Wash. 194, 275 P. 692; ... Caesar v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 187 Okl ... 559, 104 P.2d 429; Esponette v. Wiseman, ... 130 ... ...
  • Geer v. Gellerman
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1931
    ... ... 311, 205 P. 403; Twedt v. Seattle Taxicab Co., ... 121 Wash. 562, 210 P. 20; Sigol v. Kaplan, 147 Wash ... 269, 266 P. 154; Onkels v. Stogsdill, 151 Wash. 194, ... 275 P. 692 ... The ... question of whether 'cutting the corner,' as ... contended ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT