Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mazon v. Druxman
Citations: 415 P.2d 86; 68 Wash. 2d 701; 1966 Wash. LEXIS 794Docket: 37784
Court: Washington Supreme Court; June 9, 1966; Washington; State Supreme Court
Defendants appeal a $28,000 judgment awarded to the plaintiff for personal injuries sustained while riding as a guest in a vehicle owned by the defendants and driven by their 16-year-old son, Barry A. Druxman. The incident occurred on May 1, 1963, when Barry, after borrowing his father's car, drove to pick up the plaintiff and subsequently parked in a turnout at the Arboretum. After a 35 to 40 minute quarrel, Barry backed out angrily and lost control while driving at a speed between 20 and 50 miles per hour, ultimately colliding with Eugene Goforth's vehicle in a near head-on crash. The case does not invoke the family-car doctrine, and Barry is treated as the sole defendant. Key points of contention in the appeal include the admissibility of photographs depicting the accident scene, which featured a post-accident speed limit sign of 15 miles per hour. Despite the signs being erected after the incident, the court allowed one photograph for illustrative purposes, asserting the jury was properly informed regarding the absence of speed limit signs at the time of the accident. Defendants also challenged the court's refusal to dismiss references to the 15 miles per hour speed limit and the jury instruction stating this speed as the maximum lawful limit, arguing that it misrepresented the law and would have affected the jury's determination of gross negligence. They contended that, based on RCW 46.48.020(1), the speed limit should have been considered 25 miles per hour, as no formal regulation or signage was in effect to lower it. Both parties acknowledge the absence of any order or regulation altering the speed limit in the Arboretum. The defendant argues for a maximum speed limit of 25 miles per hour; however, evidence regarding the presence of a 15 miles per hour sign at the south entrance is conflicting. It is established that a 15 miles per hour sign was present at the north entrance (Broadmoor), approximately 2000 feet from the accident scene, and the defendant was aware of it. Citing precedent from Comfort v. Penner and similar cases, the court notes that the legal status of a traffic sign does not diminish its effectiveness as a warning, thus supporting the court's instruction regarding speed limits based on the defendant's knowledge of the sign. The court also addresses the defendant's motion to reduce the $28,000 verdict to $22,000. The plaintiff's original complaint sought $22,000 in general damages and $2,000 in special damages, but a proposed amendment to increase these amounts was not formally presented to the trial judge. The jury was instructed to consider damages without specific amounts stated in the instructions. The defendant did not object to the instructions or the plaintiff's counsel's remarks about the damages during the trial, leading the court to affirm that the verdict need not be reduced. The judgment is upheld, with concurring opinions from multiple justices.