Reynolds v. Pacific Car Co.

Citations

• 75 Wash. 1
• 134 P. 512
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2194

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Negligent Use of Streets — Automobiles — Rate of Speed — Evidence—Sufficiency. A finding that plaintiffs automobile at the time of the accident was not exceeding the speed limit of 12 miles an hour, is warranted, where plaintiff estimated his speed at from 12 to 15 miles and said that while his car was going the last 60 feet, defendant’s car traveled 180 feet, and defendant’s driver said his speed was from 18 to 22 miles.</p> <p>Same — Proximate Cause — Question for Jury. A recovery for damages caused by a collision of automobiles is not precluded, as a matter of law, by the fact that plaintiff’s car approached the crossing on the left at the center of the street, in violation of an ordinance, where it does not conclusively appear that he was to the left of the center when the collision took place, nor that violation of the ordinance was the proximate cause.</p> <p>Same — Contributory Negligence — Question for Jury. Where automobiles colliding at a crossing were not meeting, and the duties of the drivers in respect to turning out were equal, it is a question for the jury as to whether the plaintiff should have turned to the right (Chadwick, J., dissenting).</p> <p>Witnesses — Cross-Examination—Limit—Former Testimony. It is not error to limit the cross-examination of a party touching his testimony in a former trial, where there was no substantial difference in his testimony in the two cases (Chadwick, J., dissenting).</p> <p>Same — Cross-Examination—Discretion of Court. The extent of the cross-examination of a party rests in the discretion of the trial court.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Haemless Ebkob. In an action for damages caused by a collision of automobiles, it is harmless error to withdraw from the jury the defendant’s cross-complaint for damages to his car, where the jury found that the plaintiff was not, and that the defendant was, guilty of negligence.</p>