Provins v. Bevis, No. 37898

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtHAMILTON; ROSELLINI, C.J., DONWORTH, and WEAVER, JJ., and BARNETT
Citation422 P.2d 505,70 Wn.2d 131
PartiesNancy J. PROVINS, Respondent, v. Charlene BEVIS and Pierce County, a municipal corporation, Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 37898
Decision Date05 January 1967

Page 131

70 Wn.2d 131
422 P.2d 505
Nancy J. PROVINS, Respondent,
v.
Charlene BEVIS and Pierce County, a municipal corporation, Appellants.
No. 37898.
Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.
Jan. 5, 1967.

Page 132

[422 P.2d 507] Merrick, Douglas & Burgess, F. Ross Burgess, Seattle, for appellants.

John McCutcheon, Pros. Atty., Donald F. Herron, Deputy Pros. Atty., Tacoma, for appellant Pierce Co.

Davies, Pearson, Anderson & Pearson, Tacoma, for respondent.

HAMILTON, Judge.

Plaintiff, Nancy J. Provins, was injured during the early morning hours of April 6, 1963, when the automobile in which she was riding as a passenger struck a stump at the end of Devil's Head road on the Longbranch Peninsula in Pierce County, Washington. She initiated this action seeking redress from her host driver, Charlene Bevis, and from the proprietor of the road, Pierce County. A jury found liability on the part of both defendants and awarded damages. Miss Bevis and Pierce County appeal.

The background pertinent to this appeal may be summarized in the following manner: On the evening of April 5, 1963, the Misses Provins and Bevis, being close friends, met for a social evening. They proceeded, in Miss Bevis's automobile, first to the New Yorker, a cafe and cocktail lounge in Tacoma, where they each had two bottles of beer, and then to the Bevis home in the Gig Harbor area where they changed clothes. From the Bevis home they journeyed to the Key Center Tavern on the Longbranch Peninsula arriving there between 9 and 9:30 p.m. A community benefit, being given for a family whose home had burned,

Page 133

was in progress at the tavern. Food, beer, and dancing were available. [422 P.2d 508] The two young ladies remained at the tavern until midnight eating, dancing, and drinking, they said, only three glasses of beer apiece. Upon departing the tavern they drove to a friend's home, where they stayed for about an hour and consumed some more beer. Their friend testified that at this time they appeared to be under the influence of intoxicants. The girls denied such was the case, both proclaiming that neither was affected by their compotation.

After leaving the residence, with Miss Bevis driving and their ultimate destination the Provins home in Tacoma, they entered upon and proceeded south on the Longbranch road. At the time, it was rainy and foggy, and Miss Bevis feared she was lost.

The Longbranch road is a center-striped, two-lane, macademized arterial running generally north and south on the Longbranch Peninsula. South of the community of Longbranch, it merges into and becomes known as Devil's Head road, which in turn dead ends in a graveled turnaround just short of the southern tip of the Peninsula. The road is maintained by Pierce County. It is posted with a 35 mile an hour speed limit. At the time of the accident it was marked as a dead-end road with a single black on yellow, wooden, 18 by 24 inch sign located among some fence posts several feet distant from the right side of the roadway, and about 50 feet south of a view-obstructing intersection approximately 1.2 miles from the terminus of the road. The dead-end sign was not reflectorized, and immediately beyond it and considerably closer to the edge of the roadway was a standard 35 mile an hour speed limit sign.

As the road approaches its terminus, the bordering foliage becomes heavier and in some places overhangs the road, producing a tunnel-like effect, and the center stripe bends slightly to the right, creating the impression that the road turns and continues in that direction. Instead of turning right, however, the paved portion of the road ends

Page 134

abruptly and a graveled lane turns sharply to the left around a centerpiece of trees and foliage thus creating the turnaround.

After traveling south on the Longbranch road for some distance, the girls reached and stopped briefly in the community of Longbranch. The purpose of the stop is in dispute. Miss Bevis testified it was for the purpose of getting her bearings. Other testimony suggests it was for the purpose of effecting a rendezvous with another friend. In any event, at this point Miss Provins, who was recuperating from a recent hospitalization, fell asleep and Miss Bevis continued driving south on Devil's Head road, either believing she was on a road that would lead her to Tacoma or in pursuit of the friend who had driven past them as they were parked in Longbranch. As she proceeded south she passed the intersection with the dead-end sign and noted only the speed-limit sign. As she approached the area of the turnaround, she observed the center line binding to the right, believed she was entering a right turn, slowed down preparatory thereto, and, as the automobile reached the gravel, suddenly realized the road ended. She immediately applied the brakes, skidded sideways in the gravel, and collided with a tree stump just past the graveled area. The left side of the automobile was damaged and Miss Bevis and Miss Provins were injured.

Miss Provins predicated her claim for relief against Miss Bevis upon allegations of gross negligence or intoxication, and against Pierce County upon allegations of failure to provide adequate warning of a deceptive and dangerous highway condition. Both defendants denied liability, and pleaded contributory negligence. Pierce County, in addition, pleaded that the accident was caused by excessive speed and intoxication on the part of Miss Bevis. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, which did not include the testimony of the girls' friend as to their being under the influence of intoxicants, both defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The respective motions were denied. Miss Bevis elected to stand...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Haslund v. City of Seattle, No. 43675
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • March 25, 1976
    ...191, 316 P.2d 904, 906 (1957) Quoting Hiscock v. Phinney, 81 Wash. 117, 142 P. 461 (1914); Accord Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash.2d 131, 139, 422 P.2d 505 (1967); Simpson Timber Co. v. Ljutic Indus., Inc., 1 Wash.App. 631, 635, 463 P.2d 243 (1969); See Elmer v. Vanderford, 74 Wash.2d 546, 552, 4......
  • Carle v. McChord Credit Union, No. 13386-5-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 15, 1992
    ...was originally cast. 9 Each party is entitled to the benefit of evidence produced by the other. Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash.2d 131, 136-37, 422 P.2d 505 (1967); Hector v. Martin, 51 Wash.2d 707, 710, 321 P.2d 555 (1958); Whitchurch v. McBride, 63 Wash.App. 272, 275, 818 P.2d 622 (1991); WPI 1......
  • Keller v. City of Spokane, No. 70866-5.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 25, 2002
    ...the challenged language and arguably expanding the class of persons to whom a duty is owed. See Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash.2d 131, 138, 422 P.2d 505 (1967) (county is "obligated to exercise ordinary care to keep its public ways in a safe condition for ordinary travel"); Lucas v. Phillips, 34......
  • McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman, HANDORFF-SHERMAN
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • October 13, 1994
    ...a proper manner. Meabon v. State, 1 Wash.App. 824, 827, 463 P.2d 789 [882 P.2d 160] (1970) (citing Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash.2d 131, 138, 422 P.2d 505 (1967)). This obligation includes posting warning signs when required by law or when the State has actual or constructive knowledge that the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • Keller v. City of Spokane, 70866-5.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 25, 2002
    ...the challenged language and arguably expanding the class of persons to whom a duty is owed. See Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash.2d 131, 138, 422 P.2d 505 (1967) (county is "obligated to exercise ordinary care to keep its public ways in a safe condition for ordinary travel"); Lucas v. Phillips, 34......
  • McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman, HANDORFF-SHERMAN
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • October 13, 1994
    ...a proper manner. Meabon v. State, 1 Wash.App. 824, 827, 463 P.2d 789 [882 P.2d 160] (1970) (citing Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash.2d 131, 138, 422 P.2d 505 (1967)). This obligation includes posting warning signs when required by law or when the State has actual or constructive knowledge that the......
  • Carle v. McChord Credit Union, 13386-5-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 15, 1992
    ...was originally cast. 9 Each party is entitled to the benefit of evidence produced by the other. Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash.2d 131, 136-37, 422 P.2d 505 (1967); Hector v. Martin, 51 Wash.2d 707, 710, 321 P.2d 555 (1958); Whitchurch v. McBride, 63 Wash.App. 272, 275, 818 P.2d 622 (1991); WPI 1......
  • Haslund v. City of Seattle, 43675
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • March 25, 1976
    ...191, 316 P.2d 904, 906 (1957) Quoting Hiscock v. Phinney, 81 Wash. 117, 142 P. 461 (1914); Accord Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash.2d 131, 139, 422 P.2d 505 (1967); Simpson Timber Co. v. Ljutic Indus., Inc., 1 Wash.App. 631, 635, 463 P.2d 243 (1969); See Elmer v. Vanderford, 74 Wash.2d 546, 552, 4......
  • 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