Towles To Use Of Plymouth Ins. Co. v. Arcade-sunshine Co. Inc., 83.

• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HOOD, Associate Judge.
• Citation: Towles To Use Of Plymouth Ins. Co. v. Arcade-sunshine Co. Inc., 32 A.2d 870 (D.C. 1943)
• Decision Date: 13 July 1943
• Docket Number: No. 83.,83.
• Parties: TOWLES to Use of PLYMOUTH INS. CO. v. ARCADE-SUNSHINE CO., INC.

32 A.2d 870

TOWLES to Use of PLYMOUTH INS. CO.

v.ARCADE-SUNSHINE CO., INC.

No. 83.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

July 13, 1943.

Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.

Action by Eppa H. Towles, in his own right and to the use of Plymouth Insurance Company, against Arcade-Sunshine Company, Inc., for damages to plaintiff's automobile resulting from a collision with defendant's truck. From a judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Samuel Barker, of Washington, D. C., (William R. Lichtenberg, of Washington, D. C., on the brief) for appellant.

George Q. Coffelt, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before RICHARDSON, Chief Judge, and CAYTON and HOOD, Associate Judges.

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant appeals from an adverse judgment in an action by him for damages to his automobile resulting from a collision with the delivery truck of appellee at the intersection of 11th and Q Streets, Northwest.

Appellant was driving east on Q Street, a one-way street, and the truck was going south on 11th Street. There is a stop sign on Q Street 27 feet west of the intersection and appellant stopped and then proceeded to the intersection. A Capital Transit bus proceeding south on 11th Street had stopped some five feet back from the north curb line of Q Street and nine or ten feet east of the 11th Street curb line; and an automobile was parked on the same side of 11th Street about thirty-four feet north of the intersection.

The driver of the bus motioned to appellant to proceed into the intersection and appellant drove forward. The bus driver then observed appellee's truck approaching at a rapid rate of speed and attempted to warn the driver of the truck by waiving his hand out the bus window and likewise attempted to warn appellant by blowing the bus horn. These warnings were of no avail. The truck continued at its rapid speed and with its horn blowing. Appellant continued into the intersection in front of and beyond the bus. A collision resulted at a point about twenty-four feet east of the west curb of 11th Street and nineteen feet south of the north curb of Q Street.

The trial judge found that the operator of appellee's truck was guilty of negligence but denied appellant a recovery, holding that he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff violated Section 28(b) of the Traffic Regulations, after ruling that defendant had violated the same regulation; and that the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff did not exercise due care in proceeding beyond the stopped bus, after ruling that he did exercise due care in proceeding into the intersection.

We see no legal inconsistency in these findings. In Raaen v. Southern Hotel Supply Co., Inc., 31 A.2d 659, we held that Section 28(b) of the Traffic Regulations does not create an absolute right of way; and in Herndon v. Higdon, 31 A.2d 854, we said that one having the right of way is not absolved of the duty of exercising reasonable care in entering an intersection. If appellant...