Quitslund v. Barton & Co.
| Citation | 143 Wash. 444,255 P. 666 |
| Decision Date | 21 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20356. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | QUITSLUND v. BARTON & CO. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Douglas, Judge.
Action by P. G. Quitslund against Barton & Co. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Schwellenbach Merrick & Macfarlane, and H. A. P. Myers, all of Seattle, for appellant.
John F Dore and Adam Beeler, both of Seattle, for respondent.
In this action the respondent, Quitslund, recovered against the appellant, Barton & Co., for injuries received in a collision between a motorcycle on which he was riding and an automobile truck owned by the appellant and driven by one of the appellant's employees.
The collision occurred on one of the public streets of the city of Seattle. For some distance before the place of the collision was reached the vehicles had been driven westerly along the street. As the vehicles entered the street, the truck was in advance of the motorcycle. The motorcycle, however, was driven faster than the truck and overtook it before the place of the collision was reached and proceeded to pass it. At that place a road intersects the street on its south side at a right angle. The driver of the truck, on reaching the intersecting road, turned the truck towards it for the purpose of entering it. In so doing the truck was made to pass directly in front of the motorcycle and the motorcycle ran against it.
The state law limits the speed of motordriven vehicles on the street mentioned to 20 miles per hour, and provides that, when one such vehicle overtakes another and desires to pass it, a warning signal shall be given. The traffic ordinances of the city of Seattle provide that every driver of a motor vehicle, while on a street of the city, must drive or operate the vehicle of which he is in charge so as to keep a safe distance between the front end of his vehicle and the rear end of the vehicle immediately preceding him, 'and in no event draw nearer than three (3) feet to such vehicle.'
The first of the appellant's assignments of error questions the rulings of the trial court made on its several challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict against it. It does not contend that the evidence was insufficient to make a case for the jury on the question of the negligence of the driver of its truck, but contends that the evidence conclusively shows that the respondent was guilty of such contributory negligence as to bar a recovery on his part. It is said that he was exceeding the speed limit, that he drove his motorcycle too close to the rear of the truck, and that he gave no warning signal of his intent to pass the truck.
It may be that were we to accept as verities the estimates of speed and the estimates of distances given even by some of the respondent's own witnesses it would be found that the respondent had violated the prescribed speed limit and driven his motorcycle closer to the truck than is permitted, but the evidence of the witnesses on these matters were estimates merely, and there was no pretense even on the part of the witnesses that they were anything more. But conceding that the testimony of the witnesses must be accepted as testimony of actual fact, the respondent is not estopped thereby. By his own testimony, and by the testimony of other witnesses, he showed that he at no time violated the law in the particulars mentioned. The question thus became one for the jury, on which their verdict is conclusive upon the court.
On the question of the failure to give a warning signal...
To continue reading
Request your trial