Harkins v. Seattle Electric Co.

Citations

• 53 Wash. 184
• 101 P. 836
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1292

Syllabus

<p>Carriers' — Negligence—Taking Up Passengers — Platform and Lights. There is sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of a street railway company to make a case for the jury, where it appears that an intending passenger was struck by an approaching car while she was standing on the first or second step at the bottom of a stairway leading down to defendant’s tracks, on a crossing used by the public, very near the end of defendant’s platform intended for passengers, that passengers were in the habit of getting on and off the cars from the stairs, that the place was very poorly lighted and the night so dark that the plaintiff could not see that she would be struck by the car, and the car was going at considerable speed and her signal to stop was not heeded by the motorman.</p> <p>Same — Contributory Negligence. In such a case, the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.</p> <p>Same — Instructions—Duty to Stop for Passenger. Instructions as to the duty of a motorman to keep a lookout for passengers are not erroneous in that they were not restricted to regular stopping places, where the evidence and circumstances of the case related only to a regular stopping place.</p> <p>Appeal — Preservation of Grounds — Exceptions—Stating Reasons — Assignment of Errors. Where an exception to an instruction that a street railway company owes the highest degree of care to avoid injury to one who is about to become a passenger is excepted to because it “did not leave to the jury the question whether the plaintiff presented herself at the proper time and place,” error cannot be assigned thereon for the reason that the company owes such degree of care only to persons who had already become passengers, notwithstanding that it was unnecessary to state the reasons for the exception under Bal. Code, § 5053.</p> <p>Rudkin, C. J., Morris, and Chadwick, JJ., dissent.</p>