Snyder v. Smith
Decision Date | 08 March 1923 |
Docket Number | 17575. |
Citation | 124 Wash. 21,213 P. 682 |
Parties | SNYDER v. SMITH et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Rinald, Judge.
Action by Delanzo P. Snyder, a minor, by his guardian ad litem, P D. Snyder, against Louis C. Smith and another. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Walter S. Fulton, of Seattle, for appellant.
Poe & Falkner, of Seattle, for respondents.
On the afternoon of July 24, 1921, the appellant, aged 18 years, was riding a motorcycle on the Pacific Highway easterly from the city of Tacoma, and the respondent was driving an automobile stage on the Pacific Highway, coming towards the city of Tacoma. At Fife Station, one driving on the Pacific Highway makes a turn to the left, changing the course from a northerly to a westerly direction, and it was at this turn that the collision occurred between the appellant and respondent, which resulted in injuries to the appellant for which this suit was brought.
At Fife Station, the road from Tacoma also continues easterly for some distance. The trial resulted in a nonsuit at the close of appellant's case. The question for determination is whether there was evidence sufficient to entitle the case to go to the jury.
Taking as we are compelled to do, the most favorable view to the appellant of his testimony, the facts may be stated as follows: Appellant was proceeding towards the Fife Station turn at the rate of about 8 miles an hour. When he reached a point a little distance from the turn he saw the respondent's stage at a distance of about 260 feet from him, around the turn, the stage at that time maintaining a rate of speed of from 35 to 40 miles an hour. The appellant reduced the speed of his machine to about 4 miles and hour and when he had gone approximately 90 feet the rear end of his machine was struck by the stage.
He claims that it was his intention not to make the turn on the Pacific Highway, but to have continued easterly on the course which he was pursuing, and that he thought the stage was to keep to the easterly side of a fountain which stands near the turn. The testimony, however, is conclusive--in fact, is testified to by himself, as will appear later--that whatever may have been the original idea in this respect, it was but a fleeting one, for he testifies that he saw the stage make the turn to the west of the fountain, and that he still continued on his course. Assuming to be correct the testimony that the stage blew no horn and gave no warning, the negligence of the stage must be taken for granted by the lack of warning and the excessive speed, although, taking into consideration the speed that the appellant testifies he himself was proceeding and the distance he covered, they are not reconcilable with his estimate of the speed of the stage. But he having positively testified that the stage was making a speed of 35 to 40 miles an hour, the presumption must be that such was the fact. The negligence, then, of the respondent is established. The facts are probably best summarized by the following excerpts from appellant's own testimony:
The question remains whether the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence, which would prevent his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shultes v. Halpin
...on the right simultaneously approaching a given point within the intersection constitutes negligence as a matter of law. Snyder v. Smith, 124 Wash. 21, 213 P. 682; Rhodes v. Johnson, 163 Wash. 54, 299 P. Strouse v. Smith, 166 Wash. 643, 8 P.2d 411; Vance v. McCleary, supra; Delsman v. Berto......
-
Portland-Seattle Auto Freight, Inc. v. Jones
...in violation of positive law is in itself negligence.'' Twedt v. Seattle Taxicab Co., 121 Wash. 562, 210 P. 20, 21. Accord, Snyder v. Smith, 124 Wash. 21, 213 P. 682; Sliter v. Clark, 127 Wash. 406, 220 P. Benson v. Anderson, 129 Wash. 19, 223 P. 1063; Geitner v. Stephenson, 137 Wash. 464, ......
-
Billingsley v. Rovig-Temple Co.
...a new trial on the ground that it had erred in sustaining appellants' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.' In Snyder v. Smith, 124 Wash. 21, 213 P. 682, 683, court expressed the same view with reference to the earlier statute, saying: 'The appellant and respondent were in a situat......
-
Bissell v. Seattle Vancouver Motor Freight
... ... appellant's brief, to-wit: Twedt v. Seattle Taxicab ... Co., 121 Wash. 562, 210 P.20; Snyder v. Smith, ... 124 Wash. 21, 213 P. 682; Benson v. Anderson, 129 ... Wash. 19, 223 P. 1063; and Price v. Gabel, 162 Wash ... ...