 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wood v. City of Bellingham7/29/1991
Geraldine Wood appeals from a judgment on a jury verdict in her personal injury action against the City of Bellingham. Wood contends that the trial court erred in submitting the issue of her contributory negligence to the jury.
I
On January 19, 1988, Wood was walking south on a sidewalk along Meridian Street in Bellingham when she was struck and injured by an automobile owned by the City and driven by one of its employees, Christine Camerer.
At the time of the accident, the City vehicle was emerging from a convenience store parking lot and proceeding toward the public street. Wood testified that when she initially observed the vehicle approach the sidewalk, she stopped to let it proceed. When the vehicle also stopped, Wood assumed that the driver was waiting for her to pass and resumed walking. As she stepped in front of the vehicle, it rolled forward and shoved her into the street where she fell. On cross examination, Wood stated that she did not make eye contact with the driver.
The driver, Camerer, testified that she stopped her vehicle before crossing the sidewalk and looked in both directions for pedestrians. She then rolled forward so that the front of the car extended over the sidewalk and stopped a second time. Camerer testified that she looked to her right but did not see Wood. She then looked left for an opening in traffic so she could make a right-hand turn. As she waited, Camerer lifted her foot off the brake pedal and began to inch forward. At this point, she saw Wood crossing in front of her for the first time and immediately applied the brakes. The car bumped into Wood who fell onto the street, sustaining injury.
At the close of testimony, Wood moved for a directed verdict, claiming that the evidence did not support
instructing the jury on the issue of contributory negligence. The trial court denied Wood's motion.
The jury returned a verdict in Wood's favor, determining that her damages were $10,000 but finding her 50 percent contributorially negligent.
Wood subsequently moved for a new trial, asserting once again that the issue of contributory negligence should not have been submitted to the jury. The court denied the motion, giving the following explanation:
Mrs. Wood's testimony related to what she assumed, not what she saw. And the jury could find that she saw the car on the sidewalk with the driver looking to her left or south down Meridian Street and not at her and chose to walk in front of the car.
If the jury found that Mrs. Wood should have seen that the driver was looking away from her and not at her and walked in front of the car, then that would be a failure to exercise reasonable care for her own safety.
I'm satisfied now as I was then, and it isn't a matter of maintaining eye contact or giving up the right of way, that the evidence did support not only the submission to the jury of the question of comparative negligence but also the jury's finding in that regard.
This timely appeal follows.
II
Wood contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on her contributory negligence. Wood argues first that she was not contributorially negligent as a matter of law. This argument is based on Wood's contention that she was under no duty because once Camerer had stopped, Wood's right of way was absolute. Alternatively, Wood contends that there were no facts in evidence to justify submitting the issue of her negligence to the jury.
In response, the City asserts first that Wood has not preserved her substantive claim because she failed to object to the giving of instruc
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|