In this аction the appellant, Waller, sought to recover in damages from the rеspondent, Smith, for injuries to his automobile. From an adverse judgment, entered by the trial court on a trial of the action without a jury, Waller appeals.
On conflicting evidence, the court found the facts as follows:
“(1) That the plaintiff herein is the owner of a certain Buick automobile.
“(2) That, during the months of September • and October, 1919, the defendant was engaged in logging operations in the vicinity of Brinnon, Washington, and rеmoving the timber upon certain land belonging to the United States government, under cоntract held with the government for removing the same; that adjacent to the plаce where said defendant was conducting his logging operations was an abandoned road, which had been blocked up and unused at that point for a pеriod*646 of some four years and the used road transferred some distance therеfrom, both of said roads and said logging operations being located on United States government property.
“ (3) That, on or about the 23d day of September, 1919, the plaintiff parked his Buick automobile on the unused part of said road adjacent to where the defendant was conducting said logging operations, and the defendant, at the time the plaintiff parked his said automobile at said place, wаs then engaged in the cutting of trees in said logging operations but a little distance frоm said place, and said plaintiff, after so parking his automobile, left and went on a hunting trip in the mountains and was gone for a period of ten days, and during said time left his said automobile there for said period, unwatched and unattended; and that, at the time the plaintiff so left his automobile in said position, he knew of said logging operations and that the same were being carried on adjacent to said plаce, and knew of the danger of falling trees in the position where he had left his said automobile, and that during the time said automobile was left standing in said place, one of the employees of the defendant was cutting down a tree in the conduct of said logging operations, and the said tree accidentally and unavoidably fell so that it struck the plaintiff’s automobile and injured the same, but that said emplоyees were reasonably careful, and the striking of said automobile by said treе was the result of unavoidable accident and was not the wanton or wilful act оf the said defendant’s employee.”
On the question of the weight of the evidence, it preponderates, in our opinion, with the findings of the trial court. Clearly, there is no evidence showing that the act causing the injury was wanton or wilful, and it supports the conclusion that the employee of the respondent exercised reаsonable care in falling the tree which caused the injury. The accident was nоt, of course, unavoidable in an absolute sense, as it could have been аvoided had the respondent ceased entirely
There being no evidence of a wanton or wilful injury, it follows that the judgment must stand affirmed. It is so ordered.
Parker, C. J., Bridges, Mackintosh, and Holcomb, JJ., concur.