Allen v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 35 Wash. 221
• 66 L.R.A. 804
• 77 P. 204
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 439

Syllabus

<p>Carriers — Railroads—Negligence—Presumption Prom Accident to Passenger. The fact of an injury to a passenger on a railroad train does not alone raise a presumption of negligence in all cases regardless of the circumstances and nature of the accident.</p> <p>Same — Sudden Lurch or Jerk as Evidence oe Negligence. That an injury to a passenger was due to a sudden lurch or jerk imparted to a train is not prima facie proof of negligence, where it appears that the same was necessary to effect the movement of the train up an incline from a ferry boat.</p> <p>Same — Obstruction Near Tracks — Necessary Support eor Railroad Perry. That a passenger on a railroad train slowly moving from a ferry boat was injured while attempting to board the train by coming in contact with a post twenty-six inches from the car, is not prima facie proof of negligence when it appears that the post was a necessary support or appliance for the operation of the ferry as constructed.</p> <p>Same — Injury to Passenger While Moving Train Prom Perry Boat — Evidence oe Negligence — Sueeiciency. In an action against a railroad company brought by a passenger for personal injuries, there is no evidence of negligence upon the part of defendant warranting a submission of the case to the jury, where it appears that the plaintiff alighted from the train for the purpose of getting breakfast while it was being ferried across the Columbia river, as he was told that he could do, and upon learning that the train was being moved off the boat, he attempted to board the train while it was moving slowly, no warning being given to him that it was dangerous so to do, and while in such act, lost his balance by reason of a sudden lurch necessarily imparted to the train in moving it off the boat, bringing plaintiff in contact with an upright twenty-six inches from the platform of the car, which was a necessary support for the operation of the boat; since there was no duty to warn and there is no presumption of negligence