Coffer v. Erickson

Citations

• 61 Wash. 559
• 112 P. 643
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 1122

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Streets—Negligence—Injury to Pedestrians — Contributory Negligence. It is not contributory negligence, at a matter of law, for plaintiff to walk across a narrow foot bridge especially built for foot passengers, under which was a work train the locomotive of which was throwing up sparks and cinders, one of which lodged in plaintiff’s eye (Morris and Chadwick, JJ., dissenting).</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Streets—Negligence op Contractor— Injury to Pedestrian. It is negligence, warranting a recovery for the loss of an eye by a pedestrian by reason of a cinder, for a contractor on a city street to operate a locomotive without sufficient spark arresters, under a narrow bridge designed for foot passengers.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Evidence—Relevancy. In an action for the loss of an eye through the lodgment of a cinder, it is not prejudicial error to exclude evidence of experts as to the frequency of a loathsome disease, the effect of which might have been a disease of the eye, resulting in its loss, where it was shown that the eye was treated for such disease and the expert was allowed to go into the history* of the germ and explain the manner of its detection, as his testimony was not restricted.</p> <p>Appeal — Harmless Error —Negligence— Contributory Negligence — Instructions. An instruction upon the subject of contributory negligence is not prejudicial error in stating that the plaintiff must not “blindly and heedlessly rush into a place of danger,” when, as coupled with other correct instructions, the jury could not have been misled.</p> <p>New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence — Diligence—Discretion. It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse a new trial for newly discovered evidence, where it appears that such evidence was disclosed early in the trial, no continuance was asked, or effort made to learn of the whereabouts of the witness, and from the circumstances the trial judge was warranted in finding that due dilige