Beseloff v. Strandberg
Citations
- 62 Wash. 36
- 113 P. 250
- 1911 Wash. LEXIS 643
Syllabus
<p>Master and Servant — Assumption of Risks — Question for Jury. A miner working in a tunnel does not assume tbe risks where, upon discovering a crack in tbe roof, be called tbe same to tbe attention of tbe owner, wbo made an inspection and pronounced it safe, directing tbe miner to work there tbe rest of tbe day, after which props would be put in.</p> <p>Same — Promise to Repair. In such a case, tbe promise to put in props after tbe miner bad quit for tbe day, was tbe inducement for tbe miner’s continuance of work, and is not open to tbe objection that tbe promise and inducement do not concur.-</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error- — Instructions. Error in defining contributory negligence where there was no evidence thereof is superfluous and not prejudicial to defendant.</p> <p>Same. Stating that assumption of risks means that “be took tbe chances of it” is not prejudicial error where tbe instructions as a whole fairly defined assumption of risks'.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that a picture of the victim’s skull with “decomposing skin falling off, a dislocated mandible, and maggots crawling all around and in the vacant occipital orbits” to show the angle of entry of the bullet was more probative than prejudicial
- reversing due to the admission of a photograph “of a rotting, maggot-infested, disfigured skull and face” when the photograph otherwise offered no discernable probative value
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Chadwick
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.