Stokes v. Magnolia Mill. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 November 1931
• Docket Number: 23167.
• Citation: 5 P.2d 339,165 Wash. 311
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STOKES v. MAGNOLIA MILLING CO.

5 P.2d 339

165 Wash. 311

STOKES v. MAGNOLIA MILLING CO.

No. 23167.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 24, 1931

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Chester A. Batchelor Judge.

Action by S. O. Stokes against the Magnolia Milling Company. From a judgment against it, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Ralph S. Pierce and Kenneth G. Smiles, both of Seattle, for appellant.

John F Dore, of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN J.

The purpose of this action was to recover damages for personal injuries. The cause was tried to a court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and, in the alternative, for a new trial, both of which were overruled. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, from which the defendant appeals.

The facts, as the jury had a right to find them from the evidence offered by the respondent, may be summarized as follows: The accident out of which the litigation arose happened at the intersection of West Eighty-Fifth street and Third Avenue N W., in the city of Seattle, on September 16, 1929, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon. Third Avenue N.W. extends north and south, and West Eighty-Fifth street east and west. Third Avenue N.W. was an arterial highway, and at the southwest corner of the intersection there was a stop sign. The respondent was proceeding east along the south side of Eighty-Fifth street in a Ford truck driven by H. M. Brown. A Mack truck, owned by the appellant and driven by one of its employees, was proceeding west on the north side of Eighty-Fifth street, approaching the intersection. The driver of the Mack truck, Before he reached the intersection extended his left arm as an indication that he was going to make a turn to the left and proceed down Third Avenue N.W. The driver of the Ford truck and the respondent both saw the arm of the driver of the Mack truck extended, indicating his intention to turn, and the driver of that truck testified that he extended his arm to the left, indicating his intention to turn, about one hundred feet Before he reached the intersection. The truck in which the respondent was riding entered the intersection at low speed, and, believing that the Mack truck was going to make the turn, the driver of the Ford truck swung to the left, and, as he did so, the driver of the Mack truck suddenly turned that truck to the right and the two vehicles collided head-on, or practically so. The collision occurred in the southwest portion of the intersection. The evidence offered by the appellant presents an entirely different version of the manner of the happening of the accident.

The appellant complains of two instructions given by the court in submitting the case to the jury. In instruction No. 8, the jury were told that any act done in violation of either the state law or the ordinances of the city of Seattle was in itself negligence, and, if such negligence was the proximate cause of injury to another, the violator of such law would be liable for such injury, unless the injured party was at such time guilty of contributory negligence. In instruction No. 9 the jury were told that it was provided by the state law and the city ordinances that it was the duty of every person operating a vehicle along a public street and approaching any intersection of a street, with the intention of turning thereat to the left, to extend his arm in a horizontal position from the left side...