Franey v. Seattle Taxicab Co.

Citations

• 80 Wash. 396
• 141 P. 890
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1319

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations—Streets—Collision at Crossing—Negligent Driving of Automobile. The driver of an automohile, who struck a pedestrian upon a city crossing, while exceeding the speed limit and without sounding any warning, in violation’of a city ordinance, is guilty of negligence rendering him liable for the injuries sustained.</p> <p>Same—Contributory Negligence—Question for Jury. Whether a boy, who got off the end of a wagon at a city crossing and proceeded to cross the street without looking for approaching automobiles, was guilty of contributory negligence, precluding a recovery for injuries sustained when struck by an automobile going at an excessive speed, is a question for the jury, where it appears that he was on the crossing where he had a right to be, and had gone some distance after getting off the wagon, so that he was in plain view of the automobile which was following the wagon, as he had a right to assume that the automobile would not exceed the speed limit and would pass him without running him down.</p> <p>Appeal—Review—Discretion—New Trial. Where the trial court exercised its discretion in refusing a new trial on conflicting evidence, error cannot be assigned because it appears that the trial judge’s opinion of the evidence differed from the opinion of the jury, in the absence of any abuse of discretion.</p> <p>Damages — Personal Injuries — Medical Attention — Instructions. In an action for personal injuries, the jury may consider the cost of medical attention, although there was no charge made by the doctor for services at the hospital, or that he had presented any bill or would do so, where the doctor testified that he treated tile plaintiff after he left the hospital, and, when asked about his bill, had stated that $500 would be a reasonable charge for the operation.</p>