Case ID: wash_113/html/0698-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 15522.
    
      En Banc.
    
    November 30, 1920.]
    B. F. Ebling, Respondent, v. Otto Nielsen et al., Appellants.
    
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Hall J., entered March 7, 1919, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for damages sustained in an automobile collision, tried to the court.’
    Affirmed.
    
      Ogden & Clarke and Joseph Oakland, for appellants.
    
      J. Speed Smith and Henry Elliott, Jr., for respondents.
    
      
       Reported in 193 Pac. 569.
    
   On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

Upon a rehearing of this case, a majority of the court sitting Bn Banc is of the opinion that a portion of the original opinion, 109 Wash. 355, 186 Pac. 887, as follows:

“Then, under the test of ordinary care and prudence, he was required to have his machine under such speed and control, considering all the circumstances, including any reasonable likelihood of skidding when the, brakes were applied, as would permit him to safely handle his machine without a collision, after he could and should have discovered the motor truck, independent of the question of the sufficiency of the red light. 29 Cyc. 505; Lauson v. Town of Fond du Lac, 141 Wis. 57, 123 N. W. 629, 135 Am. St. 30, L. R. A. (N. S.) 40,” states the law too broadly. It is therefore withdrawn as an expression of our views upon the subject.

We adhere, however, to the conclusion therein reached, that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence barring him from a right of recovery, and reversing the case with directions to the superior court to enter a judgment dismissing the action.