Jones v. Swift & Co.

Citations

• 30 Wash. 462
• 70 P. 1109
• 1902 Wash. LEXIS 710

Syllabus

<p>NEGLIGENCE-CARELESS DRIVING-LIABILITY OE DEFENDANT-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.</p> <p>In an action against defendant to recover on account of tbe negligence of tbe driver of one of its teams, a prima facie case sufficient to defeat nonsuit was made out, although there was no direct-proof of the ownership of the team or the employment of the driver, where the evidence showed the damage was done by a wagon painted and lettered like those of defendant’s, drawn by a horse resembling those owned by defendant; that one of its drivers had a team out the day of the accident; and that defendant’s wagons had never been used except in its own business.</p> <p>SAME — QUESTION FOE JUEY.</p> <p>Whether the driver of defendant’s wagon was guilty of negligence in driving his wagon against the barriers guarding an excavation in the street, so as to cause them to fall upon plaintiff who was down in the excavation, presents a question for the jury, when the evidence shows that ihe streets were torn up in the digging of a man hole; that there was but a narrow passageway between the excavation and sidewalk, which was blockaded with teams; that the earth was piled up on three sides of the excavation, and between it and the blockaded teams; that the driver should have known from the conduct of the work that there was a man in the pit; that he attempted to drive between the blockaded teams and the pit, and in so doing drove up on the embankment, thereby striking the boards and barrels used as a protection against the pit, knocking them down on the plaintiff, to his injury.</p> <p>SAME-CONTBIBUTOBY NEGLIGENCE.</p> <p>In such a case, the fact that the barrels and boards surrounding the pit were not securely fastened would not show as a matter of law contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff in going into the pit, but the question of plaintiff’s negligence was properly for the jury.</p>