Court Opinion

ID: 9536347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:57:57.378963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:24.806215
License: Public Domain

Beals, J.
(dissenting) — In my opinion, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Irving C. Witte, the deceased, rented the car from respondent, V. I. Whitney, for the purpose of transporting his son, Richard, to Portland. Richard drove the car, his father sitting beside him, while Mrs. Witte occupied the rear seat. From Richard’s testimony, it appears that, in the course of the eighty-mile drive, he had become aware of the fact that the foot brake operated sluggishly. He did not at any time test the hand brake. It would have been a simple matter to have stopped at a garage and requested that the brakes be checked. It would also seem that one driving a rented car for the first time should at least test the hand brake.
In Petersen v. Seattle Automobile Co., 149 Wash. 648, 271 Pac. 1001, this court said:
“We think one who undertakes to drive an automobile on the public streets and highways must be charged with notice of everything that a reasonable inspection would disclose, whether the car belongs to him, or to another and is loaned or rented to him for the occasion.”
In 3-4 Huddy Encyclopedia of Automobile Law (9th ed.) 127, § 71, appears the following text:
“Generally speaking, it is the duty of one operating a motor vehicle on the public highways to see that it is in reasonably good condition and properly equipped, so that it may be at all times controlled, and not become a source of danger to its occupants or to other travelers.
“To this end, the owner or operator of a motor vehicle-must exercise reasonable care in the inspection of the machine, and is chargeable with notice of everything that such inspection would disclose. This rule applies whether the operator is the owner of the vehicle or rents it from another.”
In 6 Am. Jur. 307, § 190, appears the following:
“There is authority for the view that the bailee has the *871right to rely on the implied warranty on the part of the bailor that the article bailed is suitable for the purpose known to be intended, and that, as regards the bailor, he owes no duty of examination, but if the bailee subsequently discovers defects in the chattel, as to such defects he is, it seems, not entitled further to rely on the bailor’s warranty of fitness, and if he does so, he, and not the bailor, is responsible for resulting damages.”
In § 197, p. 311, of the same text, the rule is stated as follows:
“Even where the obligation of one letting a chattel for hire is regarded as one of implied warranty, there is authority for the view that if the bailee knows of a defect in the thing hired, or, in the exercise of ordinary 'care, ought to discover it, and, notwithstanding this actual or implied knowledge, he uses the thing, and injury results on account of the defect, he will be held to have waived his right to claim damages, since by the exercise of ordinary care he could have avoided the consequences of the bailor’s neglect. Accordingly, support is found for the rule that if the bailee, at the time of the bailment, has knowledge of a defective or dangerous condition of the bailed article and accepts it notwithstanding, he assumes the risk of injury therefrom. Moreover, it would seem that the bailor is not liable for injuries from defects of which the bailee later became cognizant, where the bailee used the chattel notwithstanding.”
The cases of Higman v. Camody, 112 Ala. 267, 20 So. 480, 57 Am. St. 33, and Clise v. Prunty, 108 W. Va. 635, 152 S. E. 201, are also in point.
This court has repudiated the “scintilla of evidence doctrine” and has held that evidence sufficient to support a verdict must be substantial. Ruff v. Fruit Delivery Co., 22 Wn. (2d) 708, 157 P. (2d) 730.
Accordingly, I dissent from the opinion by the majority.
Robinson and Hill, JJ., concur with Beals, J.