Wilker v. Vincent
| Citation | 142 Wash. 184,252 P. 925 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20097. |
| Parties | WILKER v. VINCENT et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Benton County; Truax, Judge.
Action by J. A. Wilker against J. Vincent and wife, in which defendants filed cross-complaint. From a judgment denying recovery to either party, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
McGregor & Fristoe, of Prosser, for appellant.
Bushnell & Beardsley, of Prosser, for respondents.
By this action the plaintiff sought to recover damages to an automobile owned by him when it collided with a truck owned by the defendants. The answer contained admissions and denials and a cross-complaint by which the defendants sought damage to the truck. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment denying recovery to either party, from which the plaintiff appeals.
On December 23, 1924, the plaintiff was proceeding south on a highway in Benton county driving a 1920 four-cylinder Overland automobile. The respondent John Vincent, who will be referred to as though he were the only party on that side of the controversy, was proceeding east on a highway that intersected with that upon which the plaintiff was traveling. Where these two highways meet there was a square or right-angle turn. The traveled portion of the highway around the corner made an abrupt curve. It was a cold day, and the road was icy and consequently slippery. There had previously been snow, but this had been worn off of the traveled portion of the highway. To the right of the appellant and the left of the respondent as they approached the turn was an alfalfa field. The appellant saw the approaching truck. The respondent did not see the approaching automobile until just before the cars came together as the automobile rounded the turn. Over the cab of the truck there was a canvas which hung down on the sides and obstructed the driver's vision to either the right or the left. The canvas in front extended down from the top six or eight inches. In the seat with the driver of the truck were three high school girls, who testified that they did not see the automobile until just as it came around the turn and was very close to them. The truck was on its left-hand side of the road as it approached the turn. The automobile made the turn and continued on its right-hand side of the road where the law says that it should be.
That the driver of the truck was negligent there can be no question. The question here for determination is whether the appellant was guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident. The trial court found that he approached the curve at a higher rate of speed than a prudent and careful driver would have done. We find no...
To continue reading
Request your trial