Potter v. Juarez, 26449.

• Decision Date: 23 March 1937
• Docket Number: 26449.
• Citation: 189 Wash. 476,66 P.2d 290
• Parties: POTTER v. JUAREZ et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

66 P.2d 290

189 Wash. 476

POTTER v. JUAREZ et ux.

No. 26449.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 23, 1937

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Howard M. Findley, Judge.

Action by Barbara Potter against Robert P. Juarez and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Leo J Brand and Shank, Belt, Rode & Cook, all of Seattle, for appellants.

Allen &amp Wilkins, of Seattle (Edgar R. Rombauer, of Seattle, of counsel), for respondent.

TOLMAN, Justice.

This is an action for personal injuries waged by one who was a passenger in an automobile against the owners and the operator of the car.

The case was tried to a jury, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was returned, and from a judgment on the verdict the defendants have appealed.

A number of errors are assigned, but all, apparently, raise the same question which the appellants in their brief describe as being solely the single question of whether or not there was an understanding between the parties, amounting to a contract which would bind the community, to the effect that the appellants would transport the respondent in their car upon a certain contemplated trip in consideration of the payment by her of such sum of money as they should determine to be her fair share of the expense of that trip.

The question was raised below by a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by motion for a directed verdict and by the motion for judgment, n. o. v.

Concededly the appellants are husband and wife and the automobile involved was their community property. At the time of the injury the appellant husband was driving the car and the wife, the respondent, and another were occupants of the car.

The situation, as the jury was entitled to find it to be, was substantially as follows: Respondent, a young woman gainfully employed, desired to take advantage of the double holiday which included Labor Day in the year 1935, by then visiting what is known as the Skagit project being developed by the city of Seattle. She communicated with the City Light Department, which was in charge of the Skagit project, and was informed that the weekend in question had been reserved for an excursion of a particular fraternal organization and that a Mr. Dunn was the secretary of that organization and in charge of arrangements and reservations for the trip. The respondent learned, or knew, that persons making the trip must supply their own transportation from Seattle to Rockport and that the bus fare between those points would be $5, which sum she felt she could not afford to pay. On the Monday preceding Labor Day, the respondent went to the office. of Mr. Dunn and, while waiting for him she fell into conversation with Mrs. Juarez, who was there employed. Neither had ever met the other Before and up to that moment they were complete strangers. Respondent then informed Mrs. Juarez of her desire to make the trip and that she had no means of transportation from Seattle to Rockport and, further, that she would gladly share expenses with any one whom she might find who had room for her and who might be willing to take her to Rockport and return.

It appears that Mrs. Juarez and her husband, the appellants, had for some time intended to make the trip which we have described, expecting to drive their own car from Seattle to Rockport and return. They had made arrangements with two other young women to occupy the back seat of the car on the trip. Mrs. Juarez did not at that time inform the respondent of such intention or of such arrangements, but two days later she was advised by Mr. Dunn that he had found transportation for her and at that time he introduced her to Mrs. Juarez and a conversation occurred between them to the effect that one of the persons who had planned to make the trip with Mr. and Mrs. Juarez had dropped out and consequently that Mr. and Mrs. Juarez would have room for respondent. This being made plain, the respondent very clearly made known her desire to pay her share of the expenses of the automobile trip and the jury could hardly do otherwise than find that a complete understanding was then arrived at by the two ladies to the effect that the respondent should so pay her share of the expenses. The matter of transporting the respondent as a passenger with them in their car was discussed between the husband and wife Before the arrangement was completed by the two ladies as just set forth, though the husband testified that...