Curtis v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.

Citations

• 44 Wash. 334
• 87 P. 345
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 836

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Hypothetical Questions — Opinions as to Contributory Negligence — Admissibility. In an action for damages sustained through the breaking down of a bridge under the weight of plaintiffs load and team, it is error to permit a witness to answer a hypothetical question as to whether the driver of the team on such a bridge should have known of the danger;, since that would be the opinion of a witness as to plaintiffs contributory negligence, and involved no question of science or peculiar knowledge.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Admission of Evidence — Harmless Error. The admission of improper evidence which invaded the province of the jury in giving me opinion of a witness as to plaintiffs contributory-negligence cannot he ground for reversal, where the appellant upon cross-examination put similar improper questions and had the benefit of the opinion of the witness on another theory of the case; especially where the answers were so manifestly proper that they could not he prejudicial.</p> <p>Negligence — Collapse- oe Bridge — Duty to Supply Safe Place— Assumption oe Risk — Contributory Negligence. Where a paving company uses an old bridge for a dumping place for gravel delivered by teamsters of an independent contractor, it owes the duty to see that that place is reasonably safe, and it cannot be said that a teamster, in hauling his second load onto the bridge, assumed the risk or was guilty of contributory negligence, unless he had knowledge of the dangerous condition of the bridge and of the paving company’s failure to discharge its duty.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Requests. It is not error to refuse requested instructions that are covered in the general charge.</p>