Ross v. Smith & Bloxom

Citations

• 107 Wash. 493
• 182 P. 582
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 784

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations (390)—Automobile Collision—Cause of Accident—Question for Jury. Whether the negligence of the defendant in maintaining an unlawful obstruction on the street was a contributing cause to the injury of a bystander, when two automobiles collided at a street intersection, is a question for the jury, where one of the drivers in collision testified that boxes piled by the defendant at the curb obstructed his view.</p> <p>Negligence (14, T5)—Proximate Cause. An act to be the proximate cause of the injury must be a cause but for which the injury would not have been suffered.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations (384, 392)—Negligence (15)—Proximate and Concurring Cause—Instructions. Where the drivers of two colliding automobiles, and a storekeeper who had obstructed the view by piling boxes at the street intersection, are all three charged with concurring negligent acts, each charged to be the proximate cause of an injury to a bystander, and the evidence that the obstruction contributed to the injury is not satisfactory, it is error to refuse a requested instruction to the effect that the obstruction would not be a proximate cause if the injury would have resulted without the concurrence of the obstruction; under the rule that an act to be the proximate cause of an injury must be a cause “but for which” the injury would not have been suffered.</p>