Haggard v. City of Seattle
Citations
- 61 Wash. 499
- 112 P. 503
- 1911 Wash. LEXIS 1109
Syllabus
<p>Master and Servant — Vice Principals — Evidence oe Authority —Admissibility. In an action against a city for injuries sustained by an employee in an electric light station, evidence of the acts of persons claimed to be in charge is admissible to show their authority to give orders and represent the city:</p> <p>Master and Servant — Contributory Negligence — Evidence—Admissibility — Statement oe Opinions. In an action for personal injuries sustained by a- city employee in an electric light station, plaintiffs evidence to the effect that he would not have used a passageway had he known that it was dangerous, is not objectionable as the statement of an opinion, but is merely a statement of his ignorance of the dangers and a reaffirmance of his complaint alleging due care.</p> <p>Witnesses — Explanation oe Testimony. Upon a second trial of a case, it is not objectionable to allow a witness to explain one of his answers at the former trial by stating how he understood the question.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Negligence—Evidence—Custom in Other Plants. In an action by an inexperienced youthful employee in a city electric light station, for injuries sustained while working, without instructions, in the high tension room of the plant, it is proper to show whether such is the customary practice in plants of •similar character, as tending to show negligence.</p> <p>New Trial — Grounds—Misconduct oe Jurors — Showing. A new trial should not be granted upon the affidavit of appellant’s attorney that articles had been published in a newspaper tending to influence the jury, where he simply stated that he was informed and believed that a majority of the jurors had read the articles, and there was no evidence that the jurors had read them.</p> <p>Damaqes — Personal Injuries — Excessive Verdict. A verdict for $16,333 for electric burns received by a boy eighteen years of age, is not excessive, where he was terribly burned, skin grafting was resorted to, his face was disfigured an
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “The purpose of judicial estoppel is to prevent parties from knowingly taking a position in one court that is contrary to a position that the party asserted in, and that has been accepted by, another court.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Dunbar
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.