Court Opinion

ID: 9543780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:49:11.248532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:11.944446
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(dissenting)—The decision of this case turns upon the question of whether defendant Fields’ presence in his car at the time of the accident was essential to support the judgment in the tort action. I do not believe that it was essential.
In order for plaintiffs to recover judgment against defendant Fields, it was only necessary for them to prove: (1) that an injury was sustained; (2) that the driver of defendant’s car was negligent; (3) that the driver’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury; (4) that defendant Fields owned the car; (5) that the driver of the car was the agent or servant of the owner; and (6) that the agent or servant was acting within the scope of his authority at the time of the injury.
In Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc., 13 Wn. (2d) 28, 63, 123 P. (2d) 780, this court said:
“In conformity with almost unanimous authority, including all of our own cases without exception, we adhere to the rule that, when it is shown that a person owns an automobile concerned in an accident, it is presumed as an inference of fact that the driver was the agent of the owner and was acting within the scope of his authority.”
In the instant case, it is not necessary for us to indulge even in this presumption, for in the principal action, the trial court found:
“At the time of the collision as aforesaid, the automobile owned by Robert M. Fields was driven by defendant Walter C. Finch with the express permission of and under the express direction of, and for and on behalf of the defendant Robert M. Fields and defendant Walter C. Finch, . . . ”
*929The court having found all of the facts necessary to establish Fields’ liability for the injury caused by the accident, the finding
“. . . that at such time and place Robert M. Fields was a passenger in his own automobile”
was surplusage, extraneous, and foresighted. It was not essential or necessary to support the judgment against defendants in the principal action. Hence, it is not res judicata nor conclusive in the trial of the issue raised by the controverted answer to the writ of granishment.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Hamley and Donworth, JJ., concur with Weaver, J.