Gianini v. Cerini

Citations

• 100 Wash. 687
• 171 P. 1007
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 789

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Defective Appliance — Nesligence—Evidence—Sufficiency. Recovery for injuries when an auto truck went over a bank, injuring the driver, are sustained, where there was evidence that the accident was due to defective brakes which did not hold, that the employer had notice of the defect and failed to give notice thereof to the servant, who had driven the truck only once before the accident.</p> <p>Trial—Instructions—Comment on Evidence. Upon an issue as to defendant’s admissions as to knowledge of defects causing a personal injury, it is proper to refuse cautionary instructions relating to the effect of casual statements in random conversations, especially where the conversation was not a casual or random one; such cautionary instructions being liable to trench upon the constitutional inhibition against'comments on the evidence.</p> <p>Same—Misconduct of Counsel—Pact of Indemnity Insurance.. An action for personal injuries is not to be dismissed because the-plaintiff, on redirect examination, testified that an attorney stated' he was not defendant’s lawyer,, but the “insurance” lawyer, where: it Was not sufficient to inform the jury, and was not a wanton in7 trusión, of the fact that the defendant carried liability insurance;, and related and was incidental to a matter brought out by defendant’s cross-examination.</p>