Pacific Match Co. v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1930
• Docket Number: 22373.
• Citation: Pacific Match Co. v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co., 289 P. 16, 157 Wash. 434 (Wash. 1930)
• Parties: PACIFIC MATCH CO. v. BURROUGHS ADDING MACH. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

289 P. 16

157 Wash. 434

PACIFIC MATCH CO. v. BURROUGHS ADDING MACH. CO.

No. 22373.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 17, 1930

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Ernest M. Card, Judge.

Action by the Pacific Match Company against the Burroughs Adding Machine Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Ellis &amp Evans, of Tacoma, for appellant.

Wm. H Pratt, of Tacoma, for respondent.

FRENCH J.

This action was brought by respondent against appellant to recover damages claimed to have been suffered by reason of a collision between two automobiles at the intersection of First Avenue South and East Marginal way in the city of Seattle.

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff below, and this appeal follows.

It is stipulated that both First Avenue South and East Marginal way in the city of Seattle are arterial highways.

While numerous assignments of error have been made, the only question presented and argued on this appeal is the proper construction of subdivision 14 of section 41, c. 309, p. 767 Laws of 1927, which reads as follows: 'Drivers, when approaching public highway intersections, shall look out for and give right of way to vehicles on their right, simultaneously approaching a given point within the intersection, and whether such vehicles first enter and reach the intersection or not: Provided, This paragraph shall not apply to drivers on arterial highways.'

It is the contention of appellant that this court should construe the above-quoted statute to mean that, where two arterial highways intersect each other, it is the duty of a driver to look out for and give right of way to vehicles on the right simultaneously approaching a given point; the argument being that, under the rule adopted in this state prior to the enactment of the 1927 statute, the car which reached and entered the intersection first had the right of way. Yuill v. Berryman, 94 Wash. 458, 162 P. 513; Jahn & Co. v. Paynter, 99 Wash. 614, 170 P. 132; Hull v. Crescent Manufacturing Co., 109 Wash. 129, 186 P. 322.

It is further the contention of appellant that under the rule announced in the cases above cited, confusion was caused and many accidents occurred by reason of drivers racing to first reach and enter the intersection, that the above-quoted portion of the Session Laws of 1927 was enacted to cure this particular evil, and that it is the duty of the court to so construe this statute as to carry out that intention. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that this statute expressly provides that the portion of it giving the right of way to cars on the...