Estes v. Babcock
| Decision Date | 23 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | 16779. |
| Citation | 205 P. 12,119 Wash. 270 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | ESTES et al. v. BABCOCK et al. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John S. Jurey, Judge.
Action by Gertrude Estes and another against Frank W. Babcock and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Carkeek, McDonald, Harris & Coryell, Stanley J Paddon, Walter F. Meier, Nelson T. Hartson, and Frank S Griffith, all of Seattle, for appellants.
Ryan & Desmond, of Seattle, for respondents.
On October 31, 1919, respondents were passengers in a free automobile bus operated by appellants Babcock and Ryan, on their way from the Union Station to the Hotel Arlington in the city of Seattle. The hotel is, or was, situated on the west side of First avenue, about 80 feet south of its intersection with University street. The bus on which respondents were ridding, in order to reach the hotel proceeded northerly up the east side of First avenue, past the hotel, and, when the proper point in the street intersection was reached, the driver started to make the turn across the double line of street car tracks occupying the center of First avenue, so as to continue his course to the hotel entrance. When the turn had been partially completed, and that bus was headed well towards the south, though still on the westerly car track, a street car approaching from the north struck the rear of the bus, the force of the impact throwing Mrs. Estes from her seat, and causing the injuries of which she complains. The action was tried to a jury, which found a verdict against all of the defendants for $3,000, and from a judgment on the verdict they have appealed.
The complaint charges negligence on the part of appellants Babcock and Ryan in the following particulars: (1) that the bus was driven at an excessive and unlawful rate of speed; (2) that the attempt to turn the bus was made between street intersections instead of at an intersection (but no evidence was offered in support of this allegation); (3) that the driver failed to sound a warning signal before attempting to turn; and (4) that he so operated the bus as to cause it to collide with the street car in violation of the terms of the traffic ordinance.
The city is alleged to have been negligent in (1) operating the street car at an unlawful rate of speed; (2) employing an incompetent operator; (3) that the instrumentalities intended to control the speed of and stop the car were defective; and (4) that the motorman failed to sound any warning signal of his approach, or check the speed of the car when the danger of a collision became apparent.
Appellants appeared both below and here by different counsel, and on behalf of appellants Babcock and Ryan it is urged that their challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence should have been sustained; but, as we read the record, there was some evidence in the case from which the jury could find a verdict against either or both of the appellants. Upon the question of excessive speed and the giving of warning signals, for instance, the evidence was conflicting, and there were questions, therefore, for the jury.
It is next urged that the trial court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. O'Cain
...Washington case calling the admissibility of such evidence into question was not filed until 33 years after statehood. Estes v. Babcock, 119 Wash. 270, 205 P. 12 (1922). That the Supreme Court once changed this evidentiary rule, and then changed it back several decades later, see e.g., Bert......
-
Kennedy v. Monroe, 1560--II
...Labor & Indus., 68 Wash.2d 938, 416 P.2d 355 (1966); Smith v. Ernst Hardware Co., 61 Wash.2d 75, 377 P.2d 258 (1962); Estes v. Babcock, 119 Wash. 270, 205 P. 12 (1922). It is the rule in this state that a doctor who treats a patient and later becomes a witness may, in relating his medical c......
-
Reed v. Jamieson Inv. Co.
... ... 643; Bennett v. Oregon-Wash. R. & Nav ... Co., 83 Wash. 64, 145 P. 62; Gosa v. Hyde, 117 ... Wash. 672, 202 P. 274; Estes v. Babcock, 119 Wash ... 270, 205 P. 12; Ely v. North Coast Lines, 151 Wash ... 137, 275 P. 78; and Burge v. Anderson, 164 Wash ... ...
-
State v. Madary
...to the doctors upon examination. Defendant also cites other cases from the courts of last resort in other states including Estes v. Babcock, 119 Wash. 270, 205 P. 12, holding that the opinions of expert witnesses based on subjective symptoms obtained from a history given by the one examined......