Blair v. Seattle Electric Co.

Citations

• 67 Wash. 465
• 122 P. 358
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1198

Syllabus

<p>Street Railways — Injury to Hoese at Crossing — Tracks and Frogs — Guard Rails — Negligence—Question por Jury. It cannot be said that a guard rail in street car tracks at a point opposite a frog, forming a groove that was dangerous to horses, was necessary, as a matter of law, from the fact that, in the opinion of the expert witnesses, it was necessary to protect certain frogs, where it appears that other similar frogs at the point in question, and at another street car crossing in the city, were not protected by such guard rails; and where it was so maintained that horses could not be well driven around it, negligence in its maintenance was a question for the jury.</p> <p>Same — Contributory Negligence op Driver — Question por Jury. A teamster is not guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, in driving a heavy team over street car frogs and switches at a crossing, from the fact that he knew that it was dangerous and that the calks of other horses had been caught in the groove between the rail and the guard rail, at the same place and at other similar situations, where it appears that the guard rail extended clear across the available space, and he made an effort to avoid passing over the rail at right angles so that there was little danger of being caught.</p> <p>Same — Negligence—Evidence—Other Accidents — Admissibility. In an action to recover damages for injury to a horse by reason of its foot being caught between the rail and the guard rail in street car tracks opposite a frog, evidence of similar injuries to other horses on previous occasions at the same place, and at a similar crossing one block distant, is admissible to show the dangerous condition of the track and defendant’s knowledge of it.</p>