Shields v. Paarmann, 32078
| Decision Date | 30 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 32078,32078 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHIELDS, v. PAARMANN et ux. SIEMERING, v. PAARMANN et ux. |
Fred T. Smart, Seattle, for appellants.
Bayley, Fite, Westberg, Madden & Goodin, by William J. Madden, Seattle, for respondents.
The plaintiffs had attended a wedding in Seattle on August 4, 1950. The bride and groom left by automobile afterwards. These plaintiffs and one Lila Lehman got into the front seat of a 1940 Buick with the driver, Owen Pettit. He undertook to catch the bridal couple. Some witnesses estimated the speed of the pursuing car as high as sixty miles an hour. One witness testified:
* * *'
In any event, at about 10:30 p. m. the defendants' station wagon collided with the Buick, which had the right of way, at the intersection of east 60th street and First avenue, northeast. The driver of the Buick was killed.
An action was brought on behalf of the deceased driver. Separate actions were brought by Roger Shields and the guardian ad litem of Violet Siemering. The three causes of action were consolidated for trial before a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendants. No appeal was taken on behalf of the deceased driver. Plaintiffs Roger Shields and Violet Siemering's guardian ad litem appeal.
They make two assignments of error. The first is that the trial court erred in refusing to give their requested instruction No. 10 which reads:
'You are instructed that the defendant, Robert E. Paarmann, is guilty of negligence as a matter of law.'
While it would have been proper for the trial court to have given this requested instruction, it was not error to refuse to do so because, in another instruction, the trial court adequately defined the law pertaining to the right of way at the intersection. No exception was taken to the instruction, nor is it now suggested that it is either inadequate or erroneous. The jury was, therefore, properly instructed, though in different language than that requested by the plaintiffs.
There is another reason why this assignment is without merit. The plaintiffs excepted to the trial court's failure to give their requested instruction No. 10, in this language:
'I will except--I do not have the number of this instruction, but I except to the failure to give the instruction requested by the Plaintiffs which reads:
"You are instructed that the defendant, Robert H. Paarmann, is guilty of negligence as a matter of law,' and I simply would like to refer you to the cases of Martin v. Hadenfeldt, 157 Wash. , 289 P. 533 and Plenderlieth v. McGuire, 27 Wash.2d 841, 180 P.2d 808 as the basis for my exception.'
There is nothing in this language or in these cases which remotely suggests the nature of the plaintiffs' contentions now made upon the appeal. In the language of Rule of Practice 10, 34A Wash.2d 75, it is necessary that counsel in his exceptions to instructions given or refused be 'sufficiently specific to apprise the judge of the points of law or questions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborn v. Chapman
...440, 294 P.2d 697; Rank v. Alaska Wash.2d 26, 290 P.2d 697; Rank v. Alaska Steamship Co., 45 Wash.2d 337, 274 P.2d 583; Shields v. Paarmann, 41 Wash.2d 423, 249 P.2d 377; Ballard v. Yellow Cab Co., 20 Wash.2d 67, 145 P.2d 1019; Glick v. Ropes, 18 Wash.2d 260, 138 P.2d 858; Hansen v. Columbi......
-
Lasser v. Grunbaum Bros. Furniture Co., 32929
...error which it may feel has been made in the instructions. Rank v. Alaska Steamship Co., Wash.1954, 274 P.2d 583; Shields v. Paarmann, 1952, 41 Wash.2d 423, 425, 249 P.2d 377; State v. Severns, 1942, 13 Wash.2d 542, 125 P.2d Whether the reason for the rule applied in this case might be deba......
-
State v. Lyskoski
...exceptions are all that can be considered upon appeal. See Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 10, 34A Wash.2d 75; Shields v. Paarmann, 41 Wash.2d 423, 249 P.2d 377. We, therefore, disregard appellant's new theories presented upon the appeal for the first (a) As to the word criminality......
-
Ralston v. Vessey, 32345
...to this instruction is beyond the scope of his exception to it in the trial court, and cannot be considered. Shields v. Paarmann, 1952, 41 Wash.2d 423, 425, 249 P.2d 377; Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 10, 34A Wash.2d Evidence was introduced by defendants upon the locations of dri......