LOS ANGELES-SEATTLE MOTOR EXPRESS, INC., Appellant, v. INLAND
PETROLEUM TRANSPORTATION COMPANY et al., Respondents.«1»
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Snohomish county, Bell, J., entered March 10, 1951, upon findings, dismissing cross-actions for damages arising out of a motor vehicle collision. Affirmed.
Morrissey, Eagen & Walsh and John E. Hedrick, for appellant.
Jack Hullin, for respondents.
PER CURIAM. -
This is a collision case in which a tank truck and trailer owned by the respondents crashed into the rear end of a truck and trailer owned by the appellant. The trial court found each driver to have been guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the collision, and dismissed appellant's complaint and respondents' crosscomplaint.
Appellant's negligence, if any, consisted of having stopped its truck on the main traveled portion of the highway. This would be a violation of Rem. Rev. Stat., Vol. 7A, § 6360-110 [P.P.C. § 295-71], and negligence per se.
No question of law is presented; the issue is purely factual. Appellant insists that there is no evidence that its truck and trailer were stopped at the time of the collision, and its driver testified that they were moving along the highway at twenty miles an hour. The trial court did not believe that testimony, as was its privilege; and there was evidence from which it could and did draw an inference that appellant's truck and trailer were stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway when struck, and had been so stopped for some time prior to the collision, and it so found. The circumstances justified the trial court's conclusion that this negligence was a proximate cause of the collision.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
«1» Reported in 235 P. (2d) 998.
ADJUSTMENT DEPARTMENT, OLYMPIA CREDIT BUREAU, INC.,
Appellant, v. ALMA SMEDEGARD et al., Respondents.«1»
PER CURIAM. -
Upon a rehearing En Banc of respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to serve the appeal bond, as required by Rule 22, Rules on Appeal, 34A Wn. (2d) 25,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion be and the same is hereby denied. See Rule 22, as amended.
«1» Reported in 236 P. (2d) 560.