Case Name: Peter Hatten, Appellant, v. Janie Batterberry et al., Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1966-09-15
Citations: 69 Wash. 2d 972
Docket Number: No. 38229
Parties: Peter Hatten, Appellant, v. Janie Batterberry et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 972–973

Head Matter:
[No. 38229.
Department One.
September 15, 1966.]
Peter Hatten, Appellant, v. Janie Batterberry et al., Respondents.
Moschetto & Alfieri and K. R. St. Clair, for appellant.
Lycette, Diamond & Sylvester and George W. Wilkins, for respondents.
Reported in 418 P.2d 236.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an action by a pedestrian to recover damages for injuries sustained from an automobile striking him while he was in an unmarked crosswalk. The jury returned a verdict for defendants.
The appellant has assigned error to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the last clear chance doctrine. He argued the evidence and circumstances were such that the jury was entitled to disbelieve the respondent-driver's statement that she did not see appellant and to find that she saw or should have seen the appellant. Upon a review of the record, we find no merit in this contention. The evidence was not sufficient to warrant the trial court's giving the jury an instruction on the last clear chance doctrine. The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.
The appellant died during the course of this appeal and the motion to substitute his executor is hereby allowed.