Reynolds v. Pacific Car Co.

• Decision Date: 12 August 1913
• Citation: 134 P. 512,75 Wash. 1
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. PACIFIC CAR CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

134 P. 512

75 Wash. 1

REYNOLDS v. PACIFIC CAR CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 12, 1913

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; C. M Easterday, Judge.

Action by J. W. Reynolds against the Pacific Car Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Fitch, Jacobs & Arntson, of Tacoma, for appellant.

Davis &amp Neal, of Tacoma, for respondent.

GOSE J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages to his automobile, arising from a collision between it and a taxicab owned and operated by the defendant.

There was a verdict and judgment in his favor. Defendant has appealed.

At the time of the collision the respondent was traveling north on Ainsworth avenue, which runs north and south in the city of Tacoma. Sixth street runs east and west. The respondent was driving his car somewhat to the west of the center of the avenue. The taxicab was traveling west on the north side of Sixth street, at a speed of from 18 to 22 miles an hour according to the testimony of its driver. Respondent said it was traveling at a speed of from 30 to 35 miles an hour. The collision occurred about the center of Ainsworth avenue near the north side of Sixth street. There was testimony tending to show that the respondent first observed the taxicab when he was at a point 60 feet from the place of collision; that the taxicab was then about 180 feet distant from the point of collision; that the respondent applied his brakes at a point about 20 feet from the place where the cars collided, and that he there veered somewhat to the right; that there was ice on the street; that his car slid and, after striking the taxicab at or about its rear wheel, reversed its course, and stopped about 15 feet north of the point of contact; and that the taxicab stopped about 100 feet west of that point. The driver of the taxicab testified that to avoid a collision he increased the speed of his car, and that he relied upon the respondent's passing behind him. The respondent and a witness who was riding with him estimated the speed of his car at 12 to 15 miles an hour. The driver of the taxi said that the speed of the respondent's car was greater than the speed of the taxi. The speed limit at the point of contact of the cars is 12 miles an hour.

The appellant first contends that it was entitled to a directed verdict because, as it asserts, the evidence of respondent shows that he was driving his car faster than 12 miles an hour. His estimate, as we have seen, was that he was traveling at a speed of from 12 to 15 miles an hour. He also said that, while he was driving the last 60 feet, the taxicab traveled 180 feet. The driver of the taxi said his speed was from 18 to 22 miles an hour. From this evidence it is obvious that the jury was warranted in finding that the speed of respondent's car was less than 12 miles an hour.

It is argued that the motion for a directed verdict should have been granted, because the respondent was traveling to the west of the center of the avenue. This view cannot be sustained for two reasons: (a) It does not conclusively appear that the respondent was to the left of the center of the avenue at the point of collision; and, (b) if he was, the proximate cause of the collision is a mixed question of law and fact. It will be remembered that the machines were traveling upon different streets and in different directions. The violation of the ordinance was not the proximate cause of the injury. 'So far as human foresight...