Connell v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Co.

Citations

• 47 Wash. 510
• 92 P. 377
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 799

Syllabus

<p>Carriers—Passengers—Degree oe Care—Instructions. It is not error to instruct that the highest degree of care and skill owed by a street railway company to its passengers is that which would be exercised by “very” careful and experienced conductors and motormen generally.</p> <p>Same — Pleading — Presumptions — Instructions — Burden oe Prooe. The fact that a complaint, in an action for injuries from a street car collision, is general in its terms, specifying no particular acts, does not preclude the presumption of negligence from the fact of the collision, and the jury is properly instructed that they may find for the plaintiff if the defendant’s proof fails to overcome such presumption.</p> <p>New Trial—Grounds—Misconduct oe Party. It is not misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, in a personal injury case, which would warrant a new trial, that, during an extended argument to the jury on behalf of the defendant, plaintiff, who was very nervous as a result of her injuries, burst into a crying spell, and was taken out of court in view of the jury.</p> <p>Damages—Personal Injuries'—Excessiveness. A verdict for $3,500 for damages sustained by a woman in a street car collision is not excessive, where it appears that she was standing in a car crowded full, was thrown violently in the mass of passengers, bruised and injured on her side, and about her ribs and spine, and rendered nervous and unable to earn hér living, at her former or any other vocation.</p>