Cooper v. Pay-N-Save Drugs, Inc.

Citations: 371 P.2d 43; 59 Wash. 2d 829; 1962 Wash. LEXIS 470Docket: 35847

Court: Washington Supreme Court; April 26, 1962; Washington; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A customer, Nellie E. Cooper, sued Pay-N-Save Drugs, Inc. after sustaining injuries from tripping over a barbecue grill in the store. Cooper claimed her injuries resulted from the store's negligence in maintaining a dangerous environment, while the defendant denied negligence and asserted Cooper's contributory negligence for failing to avoid an open hazard. The trial court instructed the jury on "unavoidable accident," which Cooper contended was erroneous. The jury found in favor of the defendant, leading to Cooper's appeal, focusing on the instruction given. The court examined the relevance of the "unavoidable accident" instruction, referencing California's Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., which deemed the instruction unnecessary and confusing. However, the Washington court noted that its previous rulings on the instruction have not been as broad as California's, suggesting that the instruction could be appropriate if evidence of unavoidable accident exists. The document cites previous cases where the instruction was either approved or denied, indicating a mixed history of its application in Washington jurisprudence.

In Rettig v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., the jury could reasonably determine that an accident occurred despite certain circumstances. In Biladeau v. Pomerenke, the potential liability of a third vehicle was noted. Gaylord v. Schwartz presented evidence suggesting that an accident could happen without negligence being a proximate cause. Pement v. F.W. Woolworth Co. references a case that will be further discussed later. The trial court in several cases provided an unavoidable-accident instruction, leading to a defendant's verdict, which was approved but later reversed on other grounds. In Jackson v. Seattle, it was deemed an error to consider contributory negligence without evidence. Webb v. Seattle allowed for jury speculation on how the accident victim ended up under a bus. Cantrill v. American Mail Line, Ltd. affirmed that an unavoidable-accident instruction is appropriate if relevant facts are presented. Bennett v. McCready indicated that a jury could find that a dangerous road condition led to an unavoidable accident.

Conversely, in Brewer v. Berner, the court reversed a defendant’s verdict due to the lack of evidence supporting the unavoidable-accident instruction, indicating that the jury only had to determine negligence issues. Pakka v. Fitzpatrick emphasized that a party must have enough evidence to warrant an instruction based on their case theory. In Van Ry v. Montgomery, the court granted a new trial, stating that the unavoidable-accident instruction was inappropriate as the evidence pointed solely to the defendant's inattention. Lastly, Hayes v. Staples affirmed a plaintiff's verdict despite an instruction regarding unavoidable accidents, noting that the specific wording was not prejudicial to the defendant. The case is considered less relevant for supporting the unavoidable-accident instruction due to the lack of discussion on the concept in the opinion.

The court upheld the trial court's decision to refuse the defendant's requested instruction on unavoidable accident in multiple cases, emphasizing that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that the collision was unavoidable. In Reitan v. Crooks and Lindsey v. Elkins, the court found that both negligence and contributory negligence were at issue, and there were no factual bases for the jury to determine the accident as unavoidable. Similarly, in Orme v. Watkins, the court stated that such an instruction would have been unnecessary and potentially confusing, as the focus was on negligence. The court reiterated that an instruction on unavoidable accident is only appropriate if evidence supports the occurrence of an unavoidable accident. The ruling in Kiehn v. Sprague School Dist. No. 8 confirmed that the defense of unavoidable accident is not applicable when the emergency results from the defendant's negligence. The court has not deemed the refusal to give such an instruction as reversible error and indicated that it should only be included when clearly justified by the evidence. Overall, the prevailing rule is that an instruction on unavoidable accident is warranted only when there is affirmative evidence supporting its applicability; otherwise, its inclusion is considered erroneous.

Facts must substantiate the issue of unavoidable accident for an instruction on that matter to be warranted; absent such evidence, providing the instruction constitutes reversible error. In this case, no evidence indicated the collision was an unavoidable accident. Instead, the jury needed to determine negligence by the respondent and contributory negligence by the appellant. Although there was gravel and dirt on the road near the collision, the evidence did not show it contributed to the incident. The ruling aligns with precedents such as Jackson v. Seattle, where the instruction was appropriately applied under different circumstances. Ultimately, the record lacks the necessary evidentiary basis for the unavoidable accident instruction, focusing solely on issues of negligence. The judgment is reversed, and a new trial is ordered, with a concurrence from several justices. Further legal commentary and case references are provided regarding the use of such instructions in motor vehicle cases.