67 Wn.2d 996, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of the City of Seattle, Appellant, v. HONORABLE WILLIAM J. WONG, Judge Pro Tempore of the Municipal Court of Seattle, Respondent

[No. 37526. Department One.     Supreme Court     October 21, 1965.]

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of the City of Seattle, Appellant, v. HONORABLE WILLIAM J. WONG, Judge Pro Tempore of the Municipal Court of Seattle, Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 610449, Henry Clay Agnew, J., entered December 13, 1963. Affirmed.

Application for a writ of certiorari to a municipal court. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal.

A. L. Newbould and Gordon F. Crandall, for appellant.

Alfred J. Westberg and Charles E. Ehlert, for respondent.

PER CURIAM -

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court dismissing a writ of certiorari obtained by the city of Seattle for the review of a judgment of the Seattle Municipal Court, wherein certain charges filed against Daniel F. Sullivan, defendant, for the violation of the zoning ordinance of Seattle (ordinance 86300) were dismissed.

We have carefully considered the entire record on appeal to this court and find it inadequate to review the trial court's judgment in its dismissal of the writ of certiorari.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

67 Wn.2d 996, GEORGE FEAK et al., Respondents, v. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY et al., Appellants

[No. 37854. Department Two.      Supreme Court      October 21, 1965.]

GEORGE FEAK et al., Respondents, v. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY et al.,
                               Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 38533, J. Guthrie Langsdorf, J., entered May 14, 1964. Affirmed.

Action for personal injuries. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Read & Church, for appellants.

Greer & Frank, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. -

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.

* Reported in 406 P.2d 772.

Reported in 406 P.2d 776.

1 Defendants were Jerry Lee Berg, who was driving a pick-up truck for the other defendant, B. F. Goodrich Company, on company business at the time of the collision.

2 Plaintiffs were Virginia Feak and her husband George. Mrs. Feak was alone in the car at the time it was rearended and she sustained the personal injuries. We shall refer to her as though she was the only plaintiff.

 Feb. 1966]               MEMORANDUM CASES                     997

From 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.