In tbis аntomobile case tbe collision occurred when the defendant made a left turn off of a four-lane highway directly into the lane occupied by plaintiff, who was approaching from the opрosite direction. Plaintiff sued for $475.81, the *957 damages to bis еar, and recovered judgment for that sum in a jury-waived trial. Upon this appeal defendant does not challenge that part of the trial court’s finding holding him negligеnt. The attack is directed to the trial court’s finding that рlaintiff was free from contributory negligence.
I. Defendant seems to argue the usual binding effect of a triаl court’s conclusion of fact is not present here, where the facts are not in dispute. It is true the record filed by defendant presents no fact dispute. It is merely the plaintiff’s evidence with a half a dozеn lines from defendant’s testimony about having chains on his car. But the rule that the trial court’s “findings of fact in jury-waived сases shall have the effect of a special verdict” (rule 334, R. C. P.) is not abrogated because the facts are not in dispute. The question upon appeal of a jury-waived case is whether the triаl court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, And this is so regardless of the presence or absence of a conflict in the testimony. Davis v. Knight,
II. In the remaining assignments defendant contends the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff wаs free from contributory negligence is not supported by substantial evidence and plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. ^
There is nо merit in these assignments of error. The accident hаppened about 10 a. m. on Fleur Drive near the intersection of Bell Avenue in Des Moines. Plaintiff, driving north on а downgrade, noticed defendant, driving south, start to makе an unsignaled left turn about 150 feet ahead. Plaintiff applied his brakes and turned to his left to avoid the cоllision. The left wheels of plaintiff’s car entered thе snow-packed middle section of Fleur Drive (the driving lanes were clear) and plaintiff’s car went sliding down thе grade at an angle and into the side of defendant’s car.
Defendant supports these assignments with a vаgue argument that plaintiff offered no excuse fоr not having chains on his car; for not staying in the dry lane; fоr not turning to his right instead of to his left; and for not stopping within 150 *958 fеet. Defendant theorizes and reasons from a numbеr of pointed questions that plaintiff must have been negligent. The argument advanced does not tend to sustain the assigned errors. Without further comment we hold the trial court’s finding that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence is amply sustained by substantial evidence in the filed record. The judgment is affirmed. — Affirmed.