Parsons v. Hamrick

• Decision Date: 12 January 1922
• Docket Number: 16437.
• Citation: 118 Wash. 305,203 P. 371
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: PARSONS v. HAMRICK.

203 P. 371

118 Wash. 305

PARSONS v. HAMRICK.

No. 16437.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 12, 1922

Department 1.

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

Action by G. M. Parsons against Mrs. J. Hamrick. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J Grattan O'Bryan, of Seattle, for appellant.

Roberts & Skeel and N. A. Pearson, all of Seattle, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent, Parsons, brought this action against the appellant, Hamrick, to recover in damages for losses suffered by him, caused, as he alleges, from the negligent act of the appellant in driving her automobile into the rear of his own. The demand of the complaint was for injuries to his automobile, and for loss of its use while it was being repaired. The cause was tried by the court sitting without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in the respondent's favor for the sum of $450.

As to the manner in which the accident happened, the evidence of the respective parties is widely divergent. The respondent's testimony is to the effect that he, with a party of friends, had on the day of the accident made a visit to Snoqualmie Falls; that after he and his guests had taken dinner at that place at about 6 o'clock in the evening he started on his return journey to Seattle; and that while on the Bothell road, a public highway of King county, with all the lights on his automobile burning, and while driving on the right-hand side of the road at a speed not to exceed 15 miles an hour, the appellant's automobile crashed into the rear of his automobile. The appellant's testimony, which all appears by deposition, while it does not deny that there was a collision, is to the effect that the appellant's automobile was being driven at about the rate of speed the respondent claimed to have been driving, that when the driver of her automobile and its occupant discovered the respondent's automobile it was about 30 feet in front of them, standing still, with no lights upon it at all; that another automobile behind them gave at that time a passing signal, and the driver, fearing a collision would result if he endeavored to pass the respondent's automobile on the left, put on the brakes in an endeavor to stop the machine but owing to the condition of the pavement was unable to do so; that he then turned to the right against the bank on the side of the road, and that the collision was the result of the...