Raymer v. Vandenbergh

EDMONDS, J.,

pro tem.

Plaintiff brought this action for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. The defendant denied that he was negligent. The court found that the collision between the automobiles in which the parties were driving was not caused by.any negligence, act or omission of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment subsequently entered and from the order denying a new trial.

The facts are undisputed. The accident happened on a rainy night. Appellant and respondent were each driving an automobile in opposite directions on a paved highway. Appellant was traveling about 25 miles per hour; respondent at between 35 and 40 miles per hour. Appellant was traveling a short distance behind another ear proceeding in the same direction, and in his own language, “the first thing I noticed was that car kind of wiggled a little bit like it was dodging something, and the next thing it was just a bang of the car that hit mine, this other car—Mr. Vandenbergh’s car”.

Respondent testified that as he was driving along the boulevard his car “was working in, you might say, perfect order until . . . for some reason unknown to me the car began to skid”. He explained the efforts he made to steer his car out of the path of the oncoming ears and at what point he applied the brakes. His car skidded for approximately a city block before it struck the automobile driven by appellant, and it continued to skid for some distance thereafter.

Appellant’s contention is that these facts show that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of respondent by reason of his failure to operate his' automobile at a speed reasonable and proper under the circumstances, and that

[195]

applying the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur,

the findings in favor of respondent cannot be sustained. However, the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur

does not give a plaintiff an absolute right to judgment. It merely establishes a

prima facie