Strouse v. Smith, 23395.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 23395. |
| Citation | 166 Wash. 643,8 P.2d 411 |
| Parties | STROUSE et al. v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald, Judge.
Action by John C. Strouse and another against Julia Smith, Hans Simonson, and William Swanson, copartners doing business as the Cream Bread Company, in which court took the case from jury and dismissed the cause. From order granting plaintiffs' motion for new trial, defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Reynolds Ballinger, Hutson & Boldt, of Seattle, for appellants.
George Olson and Frank Hunter, both of Seattle, for respondents.
October 2, 1930, at about 11 o'clock a. m., plaintiff John C Strouse was driving east on West Eighty-Third steet, in the city of Seattle. Defendants' employee, Cahail, was driving defendants' Ford delivery truck north on Sixth Avenue Northwest. A collision occurred near the center of the intersection of the streets mentioned. Plaintiffs brought suit to recover for property damage and personal injuries. The cause came on for trial in the superior court, and, at the conclusion of the testimony introduced by plaintiffs defendants challenged the sufficiency thereof, and moved the court to take the case from the jury and dismiss the cause, which motion was granted. Thereafter plaintiffs interposed a motion for a new trial upon the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision, and error in law occurring at the trial. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial on the sole ground that it had erred in sustaining defendants' challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. From the order granting plaintiffs a new trial, defendants appeal.
The testimony showed that immediately prior to the accident appellants' truck was being driven north on the left-hand or west side of Sixth Avenue Northwest, at the unlawful speed of about thirty-five miles per hour. Respondent John C Strouse (who will be hereinafter referred to as though he were the only respondent) was driving his Hudson car east on West Eighty-Third street at from twelve to fourteen miles an hour. With him was John H. Christoe, a mechanic, who was attempting to locate the cause of a knock in the engine of respondent's car. When the car was at the middle of the intersection, appellants' truck, traveling at an unlawful rate of speed, ran into the side of respondent's automobile, damaging it and inflicting personal injuries upon respondent. Respondent's witness, Mr. Christoe, who was riding with respondent, testified he saw the truck coming from the south, i. e., the right, fifty or sixty feet away from respondent's car. He was at the west curb line and the front of the Strouse car was in the intersection when he first saw the truck. He then raised his hand and uttered an exclamation. Rem. 1927 Supp. § 6362-41, subdivision 14, provides: 'Drivers, when approaching public highway intersections, shall look out for and give right of way to vehicles on their right, simultaneously approaching a given point within the intersection, and whether such vehicles first enter and reach the intersection or not: Provided, this paragraph small not apply to drivers on arterial highways.'
It will be noted that the statute requires that drivers, when approaching public highway intersections, shall look out for vehicles on their right simultaneously approaching a given point within the intersection. Obviously the reason for the provision requiring drivers of vehicles to look to the right Before they arrive at the intersection is to cause them to observe the approach of vehicles on their right.
Respondent, on direct examination, testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tobias v. Rainwater
...the duty of looking. His failure to do so is negligence as a matter of law. Rhodes v. Johnson, 163 Wash. 54, 299 P. 976; Strouse v. Smith, 166 Wash. 643, 8 P.2d 411; Hoenig v. Kohl, 182 Wash. 245, 46 P.2d 728; Chess v. Reynolds, 189 Wash. 547, 66 P.2d 297; Hefner v. Pattee, 1 Wash.2d 607, 6......
-
Shultes v. Halpin
...negligence as a matter of law. Snyder v. Smith, 124 Wash. 21, 213 P. 682; Rhodes v. Johnson, 163 Wash. 54, 299 P. 976; Strouse v. Smith, 166 Wash. 643, 8 P.2d 411; v. McCleary, supra; Delsman v. Bertotti, 200 Wash. 380, 93 P.2d 371; Hefner v. Pattee, 1 Wash.2d 607, 96 P.2d 583; Hauswirth v.......
-
Matheson v. Idaho Hardware & Plumbing Co.
...he fulfilled his duty with respect to maintaining a proper lookout, Silverstein v. Adams, 134 Wash. 430, 235 P. 784; Strouse v. Smith, 166 Wash. 643, 8 P.2d 411; Hoenig v. Kohl, 182 Wash. 245, 46 P.2d 728, and entering and proceeding across the intersection, Van Tine v. Cornelius, 355 Pa. 5......
-
Roberts v. Leahy
...duty of looking. His failure to do so is negligence as a matter of law. Rhodes v. Johnson, 163 Wash. 54, 299 P. 976; Strouse v. Smith, 166 Wash. 643, 8 P.2d 411; Hoenig v. Kohl, 182 Wash. 245, 46 P.2d 728; Chess v. Reynolds, 189 Wash. 547, 66 P.2d 297; Hefner v. Pattee, 1 Wash.2d 607, 617, ......