Feak v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
This text of 406 P.2d 776 (Feak v. B. F. Goodrich Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
— Defendant driver1 “rearended” the car of plaintiff2 while she was stopped or stopping to permit a truck in front of her to make a left turn.
[997]*997From, a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal solely on the ground that the trial judge should not have submitted to the jury the issue of whether the defendant driver was under the influence of or affected by the use of intoxicating liquor.
The only evidence on that issue was that one witness said the defendant driver smelled as though he had been drinking an alcoholic beverage, and that “he was kind of red in the face like a person usually drinking does sometime when they have had a few.” No other witness corroborated this testimony; and while this might permit an inference that the defendant driver was affected by the use of intoxicating liquor, there was no evidence that such effect was a proximate cause of the rear-end collision which caused the plaintiff’s injuries and the damage to her car.
While it was error to submit that issue to the jury, we cannot believe that, under the circumstances, it was prejudicial error. No contention is made that there was not ample proof of the negligence of the defendant driver in rearending the plaintiffs’ car; and no contention is made that the damages are excessive. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
406 P.2d 776, 67 Wash. 2d 996, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feak-v-b-f-goodrich-co-wash-1965.