Firemen's Fund Insurance v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.

Citations

• 96 Wash. 113

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Fires—Cause of Fire — Negligence—Evidence—Sufficiency. In an action against a railroad company to recover for the loss by fire of a field of wheat, the question is one of fact for the jury, where there was evidence to the effect that the fire originated one hundred and forty feet from the track, shortly after the passing of a train up a steep grade, that the locomotive was working heavily and emitting hot sparks, the fire was discovered only a few minutes afterwards, and there was no other known cause, and experts testified that engines properly equipped and operated would not throw live cinders a distance of one hundred and forty feet; and the defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict from the fact that the company introduced evidence to the effect that the engine was in good condition and carefully and skillfully operated.</p> <p>Same. In such a case, where all the evidence was to the effect that the engine had been equipped with the best known appliances on the market for the purpose of arresting sparks, that question should not be submitted to the jury; but the case should have been permitted to go to the jury upon the questions made by the evidence as to the proper adjustment of the appliances and operation of the engine.</p> <p>Same — Fires — Degree of Care — Instructions. In an action against a railroad company for the destruction of property by fire originating from sparks from the engine, it is error to instruct that the company owes the highest degree of care in the operation of its locomotive consistent with the practicable conduct of its business; the standard of care being ordinary and reasonable care, in the light of the attending circumstances and surroundings.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Inconsistency. Where instructions to the jury are inconsistent and contradictory upon a material point, the error must be regarded as prejudicial.</p>