Harry v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 105 Wash. 469
• 178 P. 465
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 600

Syllabus

<p>Evidence (98)—Admission—Conclusiveness—Estoppel. In an action for personal injuries received when a hand-car left the tracks, plaintiff’s evidence on cross-examination that he guessed the car was “four or five months old,” is not an admission that it was in good condition, and does not estop him from showing that it was out of repair and in an unsafe condition.</p> <p>Master and Servant (90-92, 161)—Injuries to Servant—Assumption of Risk. A railroad construction hand daily using and riding on a hand-car does not, as a matter of law, assume the risk if it is in bad repair.</p> <p>Evidence (214)—Opinions—Facts Forming Basis of. In an action for personal injuries, a statement by the roadmaster, making an inspection after an accident, “something the matter with the car,” is inadmissible as the expression of an opinion, where it was not shown that he was advised as to the rate of speed or circumstances attending the accident.</p> <p>Same (53)—Res Gestae—Statements After Accident. A statement of a roadmaster inspecting a hand-car after an accident is not admissible as part of the res gestae.</p> <p>Same (94, 95)—Admission After Transaction—By Agent. A statement of a roadmaster after inspection to determine the cause of an accident, is admissible as the admission of an agent against the interest of his principal.</p> <p>Master and Servant (135)—Injuries to Servant—Defective Hand-car—Evidence—Admissibility. In an action for personal injuries, sustained when a hand-car jumped the track and was found with one wheel off, in which there was no evidence of any defect other than such as related to the wheels, evidence as to wiring any other part of the car is inadmissible unless connected with the cause of the accident.</p>