Williams v. Andresen
| Decision Date | 23 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36743,36743 |
| Citation | 63 Wn.2d 645,388 P.2d 725 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Levi WILLIAMS and Esther Williams, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Appellants, v. Arvid M. ANDRESEN and Jane Doe Andresen, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, doing business as Andresen Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation, a foreign corporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation, a foreign corporation, James Clark and Jane Doe Clark, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Respondents. Levi WILLIAMS and Esther Williams, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Respondents, v. Arvid M. ANDRESEN and Jane Doe Andresen, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, doing business as Andresen Motor Company, James Clark and Jane Doe Clark, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Respondents, Chrysler Motors Corporation, Appellant, Chrysler Corporation, Defendant. Levi WILLIAMS and Esther Williams, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Respondents, v. Arvid M. ANDRESEN and Jane Doe Andresen, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, doing business as Andresen Motor Company, James Clark and Jane Doe Clark, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Appellants, Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Motors Corporation, Respondents. |
LeSourd & Patten, Woolvin Patten, Joseph C. McKinnon, Seattle, for respondents-appellants Williams.
Paul W. Robben, Seattle, for appellant Chrysler Motors Corp.
Davies, Pearson, Anderson & Pearson, Wayne J. Davies, Seattle, for appellants Andresen, Clark and Andresen Motor Co.
Frank H. Roberts, Jr., Seattle, for respondent Chrysler Corp.
In this action, the plaintiffs sought recovery from the several defendants for injuries claimed to have been sustained by Levi Williams on September 13, 1960. He was pinned between a parked car and a car being demonstrated to him by the defendant James Clark, an employee of the defendants Andresen, doing business as Andresen Motor Company.
The automobile being demonstrated was a high-powered Plymouth, which had been manufactured by the defendant Chrysler Corporation. It had been left on the Andresen premises earlier in the day by a Mr. Ogle, who was a salesman for Chrysler Motors Corporation and who had used the car as a 'field car.'
Williams had gone to the Andresen Motor Company to observe the repairs being made to his automobile which had been damaged in a previous accident. He had expressed an interest in purchasing another automobile, and Clark offered to drive him home in the Plymouth that Mr. Ogle had left on the lot. He discussed the features of the car with Williams as he drove him home, and upon arrival at the Williams residence, offered to show him the engine.
The Plymouth had a push-button selector panel for the transmission, which was located on the left of the steering column. According to Clark's testimony, he pushed the neutral button and applied the parking brake when he brought the car to a stop in the Williams driveway a few feet behind another car parked in the driveway. Mr. Williams also testified that he had seen Clark push a button which he assumed was the neutral button and had seen or heard him apply the brake.
Both men got out of the car and went to the front where Clark opened the hood so that Williams could observe the engine. He then proposed to demonstrate the accelerating quality of the engine, but since he could not comfortably reach the linkage from the front of the car, he went to the driver's side of the engine compartment. He reached in and pushed the linkage to show Williams the instant acceleration. When he did so the car lurched forward, pinning Williams between the front end of the Plymouth and the rear of the other car, causing him to be injured severely.
In the complaint, it was alleged that the defendants Andresen and Clark and the defendant Chrysler Motors Corporation, owner of the car, were negligent in failing to be sufficiently informed as to the operation and mechanism of the car being demonstrated and in accelerating the motor of the vehicle, causing it to move forward and strike the plaintiff. The defendant Chrysler Corporation was charged with negligence in the manufacture of the car. The defendants denied that they were negligent and alleged that Williams' injuries were the result of his own negligence.
The jury returned a verdict against the defendants Andresen and Clark and the defendant Chrysler Motors Corporation, but exonerated the Chrysler Corporation.
We will consider first the brief of the defendants Andresen and Clark. It is their first contention that the evidence conclusively showed that Clark did all that could have been required of him as a reasonable man, under the circumstances, and consequently the action should have been dismissed as to them. It is their theory that the transmission box did not function properly, because the neutral button stayed down when it was pushed, while the drive button was not released; that Clark did not know that this malfunction might occur and therefore was not called upon to look at the selector panel to make certain that the drive button had been released, and that he had done all that reasonable care required when he depressed the neutral button and applied the parking brake.
However, the jury was not obliged to accept this theory. The evidence was that occasionally the neutral button might stay down when depressed, while at the same time the drive button was not released, but that the drive button would be released if the neutral button was pushed all the way down. The jury was entitled to consider the fact that Clark was proposing to leave the driver's seat while the motor was running and to lift the hood and exhibit the motor in operation to Williams. It was entitled to find that reasonable care required that he make certain that the transmission was out of gear. This he could have done by applying pressure to the accelerator or by observing the selector panel, where the position of the drive button would have indicated to him that the transmission was still in gear. The verdict indicates that the jury found that, having failed to take either of these precautions, Clark was guilty of negligence. There was evidence to support this finding.
These defendants also assign error to the court's refusal of their motion for a new trial, which was based upon their contention that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc.
...cured by the trial court's actions. Starr, at 122-23, 260 P.2d 351. More analogous here is the more recent case of Williams v. Andresen, 63 Wash.2d 645, 388 P.2d 725 (1964). The court refused to grant a new trial in that personal injury case where the day before the jury received the case a......
-
State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc.
...does not sufficiently point out the action or actions of the trial court assigned as the basis of the appeal. Williams v. Andresen, 63 Wash.2d 645, 651, 388 P.2d 725 (1964); Hill v. Tacoma, 40 Wash.2d 718, 719, 246 P.2d 458 (1952); ROA I--43. Respondent asserts that in Williams we said 'poi......
-
Byerly v. Madsen
...influenced by the misconduct. Here, the misconduct occurred in the presence of all the jury.3 Defendants rely on Williams v. Andresen, 63 Wash.2d 645, 388 P.2d 725 (1964), which holds that inadvertent disclosure to the jury through a newspaper article of the fact of insurance is not grounds......
-
Jones v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle
...the challenged test. Rule on Appeal 42(f), RCW Vol. O; Glazer v. Adams, 64 Wach.Dec.2d 161,391 P.2d 195 (1964); Williams v. Andresen, 63 Wash.2d 645, 388 P.2d 725 (1964). Error is assigned because the contract was not reformed on the basis of plaintiffs' inequitable conduct, coupled with th......