Raaen v. Southern Hotel Supply Co. Inc., 10.

• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CAYTON, Associate Judge.
• Citation: Raaen v. Southern Hotel Supply Co. Inc., 31 A.2d 659 (D.C. 1942)
• Decision Date: 30 November 1942
• Docket Number: No. 10.,10.
• Parties: RAAEN v. SOUTHERN HOTEL SUPPLY CO., Inc.

31 A.2d 659

RAAEN

v.SOUTHERN HOTEL SUPPLY CO., Inc.

No. 10.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Nov. 30, 1942.

Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.

Action by Alexander H. Raaen against Southern Hotel Supply Company, Inc., for damages resulting from an automobile collision. From a finding for the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Samuel W. McCart, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Paul J. Sedgwick, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before RICHARDSON, Chief Judge, and CAYTON and HOOD, Associate Judges.

CAYTON, Associate Judge.

This was a suit for damages resulting from an automobile collision. From a finding for defendant, plaitniff appeals.

Plaintiff was traveling west on Washington Drive, a two-lane, one-way street. She was in the right-hand lane. She was confronted by a stop sign at the intersection of 12th Street. She stopped at the stop sign and a bus drew up on her left, stopped momentarily, and proceeded into 12th Street. She, likewise, proceeded into the intersection, almost simultaneously with the bus. There was testimony that when plaintiff was at the stop sign the defendant's truck (along with other traffic) was at the center of the next southerly intersection, heading north, but the record does not disclose how far away that was. The truck was traveling about in the center of the lanes for northbound traffic. Plaintiff claims the truck was traveling about 30 miles per hour, while defendant's testimony was that it was 20 to 25 miles per hour. Sensing the danger, the bus driver stopped when the front of the bus was about six feet east of the center lane of 12th Street. When the truck was about fifteen feet away from the stopped bus, it swung to the left and crossed about one foot over on the wrong side of the street. Plaintiff, in the meantime, had not stopped but proceeded to pass the bus on the right, and so was in the path of the oncoming truck which struck her car at the left front fender and on the left side. Plaintiff claimed to have looked both ways before entering the intersection and that everything was clear. Her testimony does not indicate that she saw the defendant's truck at any time before the actual collision.

Upon this showing the trial judge ruled that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and ordered a finding for defendant. Appellant claims this was error and relies upon Bland v. Hershey, 1931, 60 App.D.C. 226, 50 F.2d 991. In that case the plaintiff was the only witness, and there was a finding for the defendant, based upon a construction of the right of way regulation which was then in force. ¹ The finding was reversed. A different regulation governs in this case, namely, Article 6, Section 28b, which reads: ‘At any point at which an official ‘Stop’ sign has been erected all vehicles shall come to a complete stop and shall yield to other vehicles within the intersection or approaching so closely thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard, but said driver having so yielded may proceed and other vehicles approaching the intersection shall yield to the...