Roed v. Washington Laundry Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1931
• Docket Number: 22682.
• Citation: 160 Wash. 166,294 P. 1023
• Parties: ROED v. WASHINGTON LAUNDRY CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

294 P. 1023

160 Wash. 166

ROED v. WASHINGTON LAUNDRY CO.

No. 22682.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 5, 1931

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John A. Frater, Judge.

Action by John Roed against the Washington Laundry Company, Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Ryan Desmond & Ryan and George R. Stuntz, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Reynolds Ballinger, Hutson & Boldt, of Seattle, for respondent.

BEALS J.

As the result of a collision between plaintiff's automobile driven by himself, and a laundry truck, owned by defendant and operated by its agent, plaintiff was very severely hurt and brought this action to recover damages on account of injuries to his person and automobile. The action was tried to the court sitting with a jury, and at the close of plaintiff's case defendant moved the court for a directed verdict in its favor, which motion was granted, and a judgment of dismissal entered, from which plaintiff appeals.

The accident occurred in King county a few miles south of the city of Seattle at the intersection of the Sunnydale road, a graveled highway running in a general easterly and westerly direction, with the Roed road, which crosses the Sunnydale road at approximately right angles. At the intersection the four corners of the highway are cut back in order to facilitate the turning of automobiles from one road into the other. The Sunnydale road slopes to the west at a 2 or 3 per cent. grade, the other highway being level. The collision occurred at approximately 2 o'clock in the afternoon, March 30, 1929; the day being clear and dry, the visibility and traction being in all respects excellent. Appellant was driving his 1917 Ford roadster north on the Roed road, and, on approaching the Sunnydale road, he looked to the east and saw the laundry truck approaching the intersection from his (appellant's) right at a distance of 170 feet. Appellant testified that he was driving at approximately sixteen miles per hour, but frankly admitted that he could not be certain as to the speed of the laundry truck, which he estimated at from forty to forty-five miles per hour, basing this estimate upon the position of respondent's truck when appellant first saw it and the time and place the cars collided. At the time of the accident, there was no other traffic on either road, and an orchard adjoining the southeasterly corner of the intersection of the highways was bare of foliage so that the view of each driver was unobstructed. Appellant testified that as he approached the intersection, and after he saw respondent's truck approaching, he speeded his car up a little to get out of the way of the truck, intending to cross ahead of it. Notwithstanding his efforts, the laundry truck, at a point probably a few feet north of the center of the intersection, struck appellant's car on its right side, appellant's testimony being to the effect that marks upon the road indicated that the truck made no swerve to avoid the collision, but continued upon a perfectly straight course up to the instant of impact. There is testimony in the record to the effect that immediately after the collision respondent's driver stated that he did not see appellant's approach.

The case is before us upon the proposition of whether or not the testimony introduced on behalf of app...