Skip to main content
· 8/27/1902

Baldwin v. Lincoln County

Citations

  • 29 Wash. 509
  • 69 P. 1081
  • 1902 Wash. LEXIS 609

Syllabus

<p>NEGLIGENCE-MITIGATION OF DAMAGES-PERSONAL INJURIES-UNSKILLFUL MEDICAL TREATMENT.</p> <p>In an action to recover for injuries resulting from defendant's negligence, the defendant is entitled to prove, in mitigation of damages, that the plaintiff himself was negligent in failing to employ a competent physician or surgeon to treat the injuries and that hy reason of improper treatment such injuries were greatly increased.</p> <p>HIGHWAYS-DEFECTS-ASSUMPTION OF RISKS.</p> <p>A requested instruction that “if the necessities of a person's business require him to use a defective or dangerous highway, he may use it, notwithstanding he knows its defects and dangers,” was properly refused for the reason that such a rule would do away with the doctrine of assumption of obvious risks.</p> <p>INSTRUCTIONS-OBSCURITY-APPLICATION BY JURY OF LAW TO FACTS.</p> <p>The court charged the jury as follows: “The jury will disregard all statements of the law made hy the court which in their judgment, considering the facts, are not predicated upon the evidence; such statements are intended to he abstract propositions of law, applicable only, and to he applied, to the facts found, and not as assuming any fact' to he proven, or as in any manner directing your judgment upon the facts. You will consider the instructions of the court together. It is not the province of the court to urge or make prominent any fact of this case, but to state the law applicable to the theory of either party.” Held, that such charge, while open to the criticism of seeming t'o authorize the jury to pass upon the applicability of the instructions to the facts, did not constitute reversible error, since it must have been apparent to the jury from the whole context that the court desired to impress them with the idea that it was not assuming any fact as proven or directing their judgment on the facts, but was stating the law applicable to the theories of both parties, and that when they found the facts they should apply

Judges: Mount

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.