Young v. Dille

Decision Date10 December 1923
Docket Number17774.
Citation127 Wash. 398,220 P. 782
PartiesYOUNG v. DILLE et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.

Action by B. H. Young against J. R. Dille and others. Verdict for plaintiff, and from order granting new trial plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Pemberton J., dissenting.

John E. Belcher and Wesley Lloyd, both of Tacoma for appellant.

Bates &amp Peterson, of Tacoma, and Roberts & Skeel and Stratton & Kane all of Seattle, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

This is an action brought by the appellant, Young, against the defendant Dille and the respondents Lee Harris and Union Oil Company to recover in damages for injuries to his person and property. The appellant divided his complaint into two separate causes of action. As against the defendant Dille he set forth the facts, thought to charge him with liability, in the following language:

'That heretofore on, to wit, the 3d day of January, 1922, at the hour of about 8:30 o'clock in the forenoon of said day, plaintiff was driving an automobile in a southerly direction along and upon South L street in the city of Tacoma, at about the point where said South L street is intersected with South Ninth street and that plaintiff, in so driving southwardly upon said South L street, was crossing South Ninth street, and had nearly crossed said South Ninth street as the same intersects said South L street, when the defendant J. R. Dille, who was then and there driving an automobile in an easterly direction along and upon said South Ninth street at a rate of speed that said defendant knew, or should have known, was such rate as would endanger the property of said plaintiff and his life and limb, and which speed did in fact endanger the property and life and limb of said plaintiff, and at a speed that was high and dangerous under the circumstances, to wit, about 25 miles per hour, carelessly and negligently propelled his said automobile into and against the rear of plaintiff's automobile, thereby causing plaintiff's automobile to skid and knocking it to the easterly side of said South L street, where, by reason of said skidding, it remained stationary. That by reason of being so struck by the said automobile of said defendant J. R. Dille, plaintiff's automobile was broken, and the right rear fender thereof bent, and said automobile, with plaintiff therein, thrown into a dangerous position, to wit, in front of an oncoming truck, which struck and bruised plaintiff in his person, whereby he received a severe compound comminuted fracture of the right humerus, bruising his arms, legs, head, and body, and causing him severe pain and auguish.'

As against the respondents Lee Harris and Union Oil Company, he set forth the facts in the following language:

'That on the 3d day of January, 1922, at the hour of about 8:30 o'clock in the forenoon of said day, plaintiff was driving an automobile in a southerly direction along and upon South L street in the city of Tacoma, at a point where South L street intersects with South Ninth street and that, as plaintiff had partially crossed South Ninth street, defendant J. R. Dille, who was then and there driving an automobile in an easterly direction along and upon said South Ninth street, carelessly and negligently propelled his said automobile into and against the rear end of plaintiff's automobile, causing plaintiff to entirely, without fault on his part, lose control of his said automobile, and throwing the same to the easterly side of South L street, and that, by reason of being so thrown, as aforesaid, the motor in plaintiff's automobile ceased to operate, and plaintiff was unable to start said automobile or to in any way change the position thereof. That at approximately the same time as plaintiff was struck by said automobile by defendant J. R. Dille, defendant Lee Harris was then and there driving a large truck owned and operated by the Union Oil Company of California, a corporation, along and upon said South L street in a northerly direction, and that said Lee Harris was then and there employed by said Union Oil Company of California as driver of said truck, and was engaged so to drive said truck for said defendant Union Oil Company of California, and that at said time and place said defendant was driving said truck, which then and there with its load was of a weight of approximately 16,000 pounds, approaching said street intersection and crossing at a rate of speed which said defendant knew, or should have known, would endanger the property and life and limb of said plaintiff, and which in fact did endanger the property and life and limb of said plaintiff, and which rate of speed was, under the circumstances, high and dangerous, to wit, about 25 miles per hour; that at a point approximately 200 feet before said truck reached the place to which plaintiff was thrown by the impact of said collision above set forth, the said Lee Harris saw, or by the exercise of his powers of observation could have seen, that plaintiff was unable to move his machine and unable to extricate himself from his said position, and was in fact helpless in the path of said defendant's truck, and that said defendant Lee Harris, while so driving the said truck of said defendant Union Oil Company of California, could have, notwithstanding the speed at which he was traveling, as aforesaid, without danger to himself or any other person, stopped said truck before it reached plaintiff, but that nevertheless said defendant Lee Harris failed and neglected to exercise any effort for plaintiff's safety, but proceeded directly toward plaintiff, and carelessly and negligently propelled his said truck into and against plaintiff's car, totally destroying the same, striking, bruising, and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • State v. McCollum
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 27, 1943
    ... ... 154, 70 P. 255, overruled by ... Rochester v. Seattle, Renton & S. R. Co., 75 Wash ... 559, 563, 135 P. 209. See Young v. Dille, 127 Wash ... 398, 405, 220 P. 782, and New York Life Ins. Co. v ... Newport, 1 Wash.2d 511, 516, 96 P.2d 449 ... ...
  • Seattle First Nat. Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 28, 1978
    ...in common or who have breached a joint duty. White Pass Co. v. St. John, 71 Wash.2d 156, 158, 427 P.2d 398 (1967); Young v. Dille, 127 Wash. 398, 404, 220 P. 782 (1923); F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts, § 10.1. Concurrent tort-feasors are those whose independent acts concur to produc......
  • DeMaris v. Brown
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 1980
    ...a single injury. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Shoreline Concrete Co., 91 Wash.2d 230, 235, 588 P.2d 1308 (1978); Young v. Dille, 127 Wash. 398, 404, 220 P. 782 (1923). If two or more individuals commit independent acts of negligence that concurrently produce the proximate cause of a third pa......
  • Larson v. City of Seattle
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1946
    ...151 P. 1134; Smith Sand & Gravel Co. v. Corbin, 89 Wash. 43, 154 P. 150; Parkhurst v. Elliott, 103 Wash. 89, 173 P. 731; Young v. Dille, 127 Wash. 398, 220 P. 782; Fuller v. Friedman, 131 Wash. 282, 230 P. Fagerdahl v. North Coast Transport Co., 178 Wash. 482, 35 P.2d 46; Grant v. Fisher Fl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT