Switzer v. Sherwood

• Decision Date: 06 June 1914
• Docket Number: 11592.
• Citation: 80 Wash. 19,141 P. 181
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SWITZER v. SHERWOOD et al.

141 P. 181

80 Wash. 19

SWITZER v. SHERWOOD et al.

No. 11592.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 6, 1914

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; J. Stanley Webster, Judge.

Action by Roy Switzer, by O. A. Switzer, as guardian ad litem against F. L. Sherwood and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The defendant Lucy W. Sherwood was the daughter of the other two defendants.

Caleb Jones, of Spokane, for appellants.

D. R Glasgow, of Spokane, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Spokane county, entered in an action for personal injuries brought by the respondent against the appellants.

Crestline street and Buckeye avenue are public streets within the city of Spokane, crossing each other at right angles. Crestline street extends north and south from this crossing, and Buckeye avenue east and west therefrom. Along the center of Crestline street are the double tracks of a street railway company. Neither of these streets at the time of the accident was graded or otherwise improved by the city, and neither used by the public for its full width; the travel on Crestline street being confined to the west side of the railway tracks, and the travel on Buckeye avenue to the south side thereof. On the evening of August 1, 1912, the respondent was proceeding north on Crestline street riding a motorcycle. At the same time the appellants Lucy W. Sherwood and F. L. Sherwood were riding west on Buckeye avenue in an automobile driven by Lucy W. Sherwood. Both parties were approaching the junction of the streets. The respondent reached the junction slightly ahead of the appellants and crossed the traveled way in front of the automobile. As he reached a point some four or five feet beyond the course of the traveled way of Buckeye avenue, he turned to the right, intending to cross to the other side of the street. At that point he was run into by the automobile the machine having been swerved to the right of the traveled way by its driver. As a result of the collision, the respondent's leg was broken, and his body otherwise bruised, causing him painful and lasting injuries.

The appellants, at the time of their appearance in the action moved for an order requiring the complaint to be made more definite and certain, and to require the respondent to furnish them with a bill of particulars, and, on these motions being overruled, filed a general demurrer to the complaint, which was likewise overruled. The rulings on these motions and on the demurrer constitute the first of the errors assigned by the appellants. The respondent stated in his complaint the facts leading up to the injury from his own viewpoint. He alleged that, at the time of the collision, the appellants unlawfully, negligently, and carelessly lost control of the automobile; that they did not drive the same over the usual traveled way but over that portion of the street which is several feet north of the usual traveled way; that they drove the automobile recklessly and carelessly without regard to the safety of persons passing on the street in the vicinity of the accident; that they gave no warning of their approach to the street, did not slacken their speed so as to have the automobile under control, and carelessly and negligently permitted the machine to collide with the respondent; and that the conditions above referred to and the injury sustained by the respondent were due solely to the reckless, careless, negligent, and unlawful manner in which the automobile was operated. The motion asks that the respondent be required to state in what respect the appellants were negligent and careless in the operation of the automobile, specifying each particular act of negligence relied upon; that he state in what respect the appellants lost control of the automobile, in what way and in what respect the appellants were careless in operating and driving it, in what way or respect they disregarded the safety of persons traveling in that vicinity, the rate of speed they were traveling, and distinctly and definitely if they lost control of their automobile on account of such rate of speed; that he state definitely what the carelessness consisted of in permitting the car to leave the traveled roadway, to state definitely and certainly what conditions were referred to in the phrase 'that the conditions above referred to,' used in the complaint, and to state ...