-
Upon the facts of the case, the instruction complained of was the equivalent of a directed verdict for the defendants. Plaintiff was crossing at an intersection on a course approximating the sidewalk area extended. She looked before starting across and saw no vehicle approaching.
This court has repeatedly held, upon similar facts, that it is for the jury — not the court — to say whether an injured person is guilty of contributory negligence in proceeding without looking again. Hillebrant v. Manz,
71 Wash. 250 ,128 P. 892 ;Chase v. Seattle Taxicab Transfer Co.,78 Wash. 537 ,139 P. 499 ; Redick v. Peterson,99 Wash. 368 ,169 P. 804 ; Olsen v.Peerless Laundry,111 Wash. 660 ,191 P. 756 ; Hiteshue v.Robinson,170 Wash. 272 ,16 P.2d 610 . In these decisions, it is expressly asserted that, if a pedestrian looks before starting across a street at an intersection, *Page 351 he is not bound as a matter of law to look again if he sees nothing in the way of vehicular traffic to threaten his safety in crossing.I dissent.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 27622.
Citation Numbers: 97 P.2d 1099, 2 Wash. 2d 338
Judges: BEALS, J.
Filed Date: 1/22/1940
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023