Halverson v. Seattle Electric Co.
Citations
- 35 Wash. 600
- 77 P. 1058
- 1904 Wash. LEXIS 486
Syllabus
<p>Carriers — Negligence—Speed oe Street Cab — Motorman as Expert Witness. Upon an issue as to negligence in running a street car around a curve at a dangerous rate of speed, a motorman is qualified as an expert to answer questions as to what rate of speed would, in his opinion, be safe, where he testifies that he was familiar with the road throughout its entire length and knew the curve, that he had been a motorman on this line for six or seven months, and was familiar with the speed of cars; the matter of qualification resting largely in the discretion of the court.</p> <p>Death — Damages to Widow — Evidence—Earning Capacity oe Husband’s Business — Statements Irrespective oe Books — Best Evidence. In an action by a widow for damages for the death of her husband, where the wife had been associated with him in, and was familiar with the amount of, his business, as a photographer, it is competent, upon the subject of the damages, for the wife to testify that he was earning about $2,000 per year, without producing the books, her estimate being based thereon and on her knowledge of the business, since the books, while the best evidence of their contents, are only secondary evidence of the income of the business.</p> <p>Carriers — Negligence—Speed oe Street Car — Evidence—Experiments — Similarity oe Conditions — Discretion. Upon an issue as to negligence in' running a street car around a curve at a dangerous rate of speed, it is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to admit the result of experiments made with the same car at a time when the conditions were different from those existing at the time of the accident, in that the time of day, the load on the car, the load on the electric current, and the condition of the rails were different; and the fact that the conditions were more favorable to the plaintiff than to the defendant does not make such exclusion error, since the same was within the sound discretion of the court, to be reviewed only for abuse.</p> <p>Appeal —
Judges: Mount
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Kramer v. Portland-Seattle Auto Freight, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1953-10-01· cited 65×
- Fosbre v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1967-03-02· cited 48×
- Hogenson v. Service Armament Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1969-11-06· cited 39×
- State v. DavisWashington Supreme Court· 1952-11-28· cited 35×
- Adams v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1967-06-15· cited 33×
- Malstrom v. KallandWashington Supreme Court· 1963-08-15· cited 33×
- Amsbary v. Grays Harbor Railway & Light Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1914-02-28· cited 21×
- State v. McMurrayWashington Supreme Court· 1955-08-11· cited 18×
- Kranzusch v. Trustee Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1916-12-12· cited 18×
- State v. GilmanWashington Supreme Court· 1963-10-03· cited 17×
- Freeman v. Intalco Aluminum Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington· 1976-06-22· cited 15×
- Orme v. WatkinsWashington Supreme Court· 1954-03-01· cited 12×
- Johnson v. Marshall Field & Co.Court of Appeals of Washington· 1969-12-31· cited 4×
- Williams v. Spokane Falls & Northern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1906-11-13· cited 2×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced 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.