Gauthier v. Wood & Iverson

Citations

• 49 Wash. 8
• 94 P. 654
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 514

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Negligence—Operation oe Railroad — Defective Coupling — Contributory Negligence — Questions for Jury. The questions of negligence of the defendant and contributory negligence of the deceased and his assumption of risks, are primarily for the jury, and a verdict for plaintiffs, upheld by the trial court on motion for new trial, cannot be disturbed by the appellate-court, where there was evidence that a coupling between the tender of a logging engine and a car was defective and that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection; that in backing a train of cars up a grade, the coupling broke, and the deceased, a fireman, who was standing on the foot board for the purpose of applying sand to the rails, was caught and crushed between the tender and the logs on the car, it being rulable for him to do so when sand was necessary; although the place was known to be a dangerous place, and the engineer had not ordered the sand.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error. It is not prejudicial error to exclude evidence of a witness as to a warning of danger given to deceased, where subsequently another witness testified fully to the transaction and the same was not disputed blit became an admitted fact in the case.</p> <p>Continuance — Grounds—Absence of Witnesses — Necessity of Showing. It is not error to refuse a continuance to defendant asked for at 4:30 o’clock until the next day, in order to meet evidence of the plaintiff on reopening the case for the purpose of introducing evidence not proper in rebuttal, where the defendants failed to make any showing pursuant to Bal. Code, § 4977, as suggested by the court at the time, hut merely stated that their witnesses had been excused and it would be necessary to hunt them up and consult with them.</p>