Tooker v. Perkins
Citations
- 86 Wash. 567
- 150 P. 1138
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Review—Verdict. Where there is conflict in the evidence, the facts are for the jury, and unless physically impossible or naturally improbable so that reasonable minds could not differ thereon, the supreme court accepts as conclusive the fact necessarily resolved by the jury in respondent’s favor.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Streets—Negligent Driving — Contributory Negligence — Instructions. In an action for injuries sustained by pedestrians struck by an automobile, in the nighttime, where plaintiffs stopped and looked in all directions before starting to cross a street in the middle of the block and saw no car approaching and were struck by a car carrying insufficient lights, which it was impossible to see any distance, and the plaintiffs did not see the car until about six feet away, it is proper to refuse an instruction that plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence in crossing the street in the middle of the block in case the view was unobstructed and the car carried ordinary lights; since the instruction was not based upon the evidence.</p> <p>Same. In such an action, evidence to the effect that, when plaintiff first saw the car, it veered to the east and he assumed it would pass to the east of him, when it suddenly veered to the west, does not warrant an instruction based on the fact that plaintiff assumed that the car would pass down an east driveway contrary to the law of the road, since there was no evidence of any such assumption on his part.</p> <p>Same — Streets—Negligent Use — Contributory Negligence — Acts in Emergency — Question for Jury. Where a rapidly approaching automobile, but a few feet distant, first veered to the east, and then suddenly veered to the west, striking the plaintiffs, head on, before they could move, the question of their contributory negligence in endeavoring to get out of the way in the emergency is for the jury.</p> <p>Same — Streets—Negligent Use — Failure to Sound Horn — Question for Jury. In an action
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the “settled rule” is that a statute “is not to have a retrospective effect . . . unless the intention to have it operate retrospectively is clearly expressed”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holcomb
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.