Segerstrom v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 22 July 1911
• Parties: SEGERSTROM v. LAWRENCE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

116 P. 876

64 Wash. 245

SEGERSTROM v. LAWRENCE.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 22, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Ernest Peck Judge.

Action by H. T. Segerstrom against R. T. Lawrence. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Nuzum &amp Nuzum and Geo. H. Armitage, for appellant.

Guy B Groff, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent, while crossing Main avenue in the city of Spokane on foot, collided with, or was run into, and injured by the appellant, who was driving an automobile. He brought this action to recover for the injury sustained. On a trial by jury a verdict and judgment was returned and entered in his favor, and this appeal followed.

The appellant complains that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict; but it is clear there was a case for the jury. The evidence on the part of the respondent tended to show that the collision occurred some time after 9 o'clock in the evening; that the automobile was being driven without lights, on the left-hand side of the street reckoning from the direction in which it was going; that no warning was given of its approach by tooting a horn or otherwise; and that it was driven in a somewhat reckless manner. Evidence was introduced also tending to show due care on the part of the injured person. These facts made a primafacie case for the respondent, and it was for the jury to say whether the case was overcome by the evidence introduced on the part of the respondent.

The court, among other instructions, gave the following to the jury: 'The law of the road is that all vehicles should remain upon the right side of the street in the direction in which they are going; that all drivers are presumed to know the law of the road, and should be guarded thereby; that a driver of a vehicle or automobile voluntarily violating the law of the road, and driving or riding along the wrong side of the street, is bound to use a higher degree of care than if he were properly operating his automobile on the right side of the street.'

This instruction, while not strictly accurate, was not prejudicial. The statute relating to the law of travel for vehicles upon a public highway requires that they shall seasonably turn to the right of the center of the way when passing another vehicle going in the opposite direction (Rem. & Bal. Code,§ 5558), and the statute relating to automobiles requires the driver to turn to the right on meeting vehicles, teams, or persons moving or headed in the opposite direction (Rem. & Bal. Code, § 5569). 'Seasonably turn' means 'that the travelers shall turn to the right in such season that neither shall be retarded in his progress, by reason of the other occupying his half of the way which the law has assigned to his use, when he may have occasion to use it in passing. In short, each has the undoubted right to one-half of the way, whenever he wishes to pass on it; and it is the duty of each, without delay, to yield such half to the other.' Brooks v. Hart, 14 N.H. 310. There is a 'law of the road' also arising from usage and custom which requires persons traveling upon a continuously used street or highway to keep upon the right side of such way. These are regulations to avoid collisions, and the one who neglects it and collides with another usually has the burden of explaining his conduct.

But these rules are not inflexible. A person may lawfully use what is to him the left-hand side of...