Underwood v. Tremaine
| Decision Date | 19 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37075,37075 |
| Citation | 390 P.2d 533,64 Wn.2d 12 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | John UNDERWOOD, Sr., Guardian ad Litem of John Underwood, Jr., Appellant, v. B. M. TREMAINE and Jane Doe Tremaine, husband and wife, Respondents. |
Lycette, Diamond & Sylvester, Seattle, Hollister & Thomas, Portland, Or., Earle W. Zinn, Seattle, for appellant.
Kahin, Horswill, Keller, Rohrback, Waldo & Moren, Seattle, for respondents.
This is an appeal by a plaintiff from a summary judgment of dismissal in an action brought on behalf of a minor who was a passenger in the disfavored car in an intersection 1 collision. (We shall hereafter refer to the minor as though he were the plaintiff.) The negligence of the driver of that car, not being attributable to the plaintiff, there is but one issue, and that is whether there is any evidence of negligence on the part of the favored driver that would raise a genuine issue of fact to be determined at a trial.
The two cars collided almost head-on almost immediately after the car in which the plaintiff was riding was driven across the white center line on U. S. Highway 10 into the lane on which the defendants were traveling and where they had the right of way.
The depositions of the defendants and the affidavits of the witnesses were before the trial court, including the affidavits of three disinterested witnesses who were in an automobile on State Highway 7. They had stopped and were waiting for an opportunity to enter the intersection. The collision occurred almost directly in front of them.
The plaintiff is unable to point to any controverted material fact. He suggests three possible inferences, none of which have any relation to the practicabilities of the situation:
(1) He urges that maybe there was a failure to keep a lookout ahead, based on the defendant driver's testimony that he was giving some attention to the car of the disinterested witnesses on his right which had been approaching the intersection on State Highway 7 from the north, and he infers therefrom that the defendant driver was not watching directly ahead. However, there was no reason to be concerned about the car in which the plaintiff was riding, until it suddenly crossed the center line into the defendants' lane of travel. The defendant driver did see it just as it came across the center line; and no amount of lookout ahead could have made its presence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boerner v. Lambert's Estate
...a reasonable person would not have seen had he looked. Bohnsack v. Kirkham, 72 Wash.2d 183, 432 P.2d 554 (1967); Underwood v. Tremaine, 64 Wash.2d 12, 390 P.2d 533 (1964). If, however, the first driver suddenly and without prior warning sees the other driver cross over into the first driver......
-
Bohnsack v. Kirkham
...proper control. With regard to a favored driver's obligation to observe an approaching vehicle, this court, in Underwood v. Tremaine, 64 Wash.2d 12, 390 P.2d 533 (1964), held that the failure of a driver to adequately observe an approaching vehicle prior to its suddenly crossing the center ......