55 Wn.2d 282, LEO LIPP et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM E. ZIMMERMAN et al., Respondents
[No. 35033. Department Two. Supreme Court December 17, 1959.]
LEO LIPP et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM E. ZIMMERMAN et al.,
Respondents.1
[1] AUTOMOBILES - ACTIONS EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - ACCIDENTS AT INTERSECTIONS. In an action to recover damages resulting from an automobile accident occurring when the plaintiffs' car was squeezed between a curb and the defendants' truck and trailer combination, it was proper to submit the affirmative defense of contributory negligence to the jury, where the jury was entitled to find that the plaintiff driver had placed himself in a position of peril by stopping his car between the truck and the curb, in an area too narrow for reasonable accommodation, at an intersection where the defendants' truck was waiting for a traffic signal to change from red to green, and it appeared that the defendant truck driver was signaling for a right turn and that because of physical barriers and traffic signals at the intersection, it was only possible for the defendant truck driver to make a right turn.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King county, No. 515781, Hugh C. Todd, J., entered November 13, 1958, dismissing an action for damages resulting from an automobile accident after a verdict rendered by a jury in favor of the defendants. Affirmed.
Litchman & Litchman, for appellants.
Martin, Shorts & Bever, for respondents.
1 Reported in 347 P. (2d) 827.
[1] See Ann. 140 A. L. R. 754, 6 A. L. R. (2d) 1258, 25 A. L. R. (2d) 1229, 50 A. L. R. (2d) 1296; Am. Jur., Automobiles and Highway Traffic, 1028.
Dec. 1959] LIPP v. ZIMMERMAN. 283
PER CURIAM. -
In this action to recover damages arising from an automobile accident, appellants plaintiffs below, appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered upon the jury'S verdict for the defendants, respondents here.
The court instructed that the defendant truck driver was negligent as a matter of law but left it to the jury to decide the conflict of the evidence upon the respondents' affirmative defense of the appellants' contributory negligence.
This is the sole error assigned. For this purpose, the evidence and permissible inferences must be considered from the standpoint most favorable to the respondents.
[1] While the respondents' truck and trailer combination was stopped at the light-controlled intersection waiting for the signal light to change from red to green, appellent driver, who was traveling in the same direction, stopped his car between the trailer and the curb. There was testimony that the space into which appellant driver drew his car was too narrow for reasonable accommodation, and it is undisputed that the truck's right-turn signal continued flashing from the time the truck stopped. Appellants' counsel frankly conceded in oral argument that, at the intersection in question, only a right turn was possible. Forward travel was blocked by a bridge, and left-hand turns were prohibited. The jury was entitled to find appellant driver had placed himself in a position of peril so that, when the trailer was turned, his car would be squeezed between the trailer and a utility pole at the curb. and it was proper, therefore, to submit the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.
Affirmed.
February 4, 1960. Petition for rehearing denied.