Kranzusch v. Trustee Co.
Citations
- 93 Wash. 629
- 161 P. 492
- 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1254
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Dismissal—Abstract—Sufficiency. Under Rem. 1915 Code, § 1730-6, insufficiency of the abstract of the evidence or of its index is not ground for dismissal of the appeal, but only for motion to amend the abstract, upon terms.</p> <p>Appeal — Record—Supplemental Abstract. A supplemental transcript containing matters not introduced in evidence and in no way material to the appeal will be struck out on motion.</p> <p>Same. Where the appellants’ abstract on appeal is deemed insufficient, the respondent is privileged to file a supplemental abstract, even if it goes over the same ground; and if it be too full, the remedy is by motion to correct it, and not to strike.</p> <p>Carriers — Off Passengers — Elevators—Negligence — Evidence— Sufficiency. Evidence that a child entered an elevator holding its mother’s hand and that the elevator started quickly with a sudden movement before the child had fairly entered, and that he fell to the floor of the cage, toward the open door and was caught by a projecting floor or mechanism of a projecting indicator over the door, warrants a finding of negligence in the operation and maintenance of the elevator; it being negligence to leave projecting floors or mechanism in the elevator well and at the same time operate the elevator cage with an open door.</p> <p>Death — Damages—Infant—Evidence—Admissibility. In an action for the death of a minor child, evidence of the earning power of the child during minority is admissible.</p> <p>Evidence — Opinion Evidence — Experts—Qualification—Admissibility. Upon an issue as to the earning power of a minor child, the qualification of the witness to testify as an expert as to the cost of rearing and educating the child is largely a matter of discretion, and the ruling will not be disturbed except for manifest abuse of discretion.</p> <p>Death — Measure of Damages — Excessive Damages. A verdict for $3,576 for the wrongful death of a son, four years of age, will not be held excessive, in the ab
Judges: Fullerton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- City of Seattle v. AbrahamsonWashington Supreme Court· 1919-12-17· cited 10×
- Wishkah Boom Co. v. Greenwood Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1918-03-02· cited 8×
- Stumpf v. Baronne Building, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal· 1931-02-16· cited 7×
- Stevens v. SchickendanzSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1957-10-28· cited 6×
- Swenland v. GregoryWashington Supreme Court· 1922-02-24· cited 4×
- Weiffenbach v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1918-07-29· cited 3×
- Connecticut Investment Co. v. YokomWashington Supreme Court· 1919-01-22
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Sweeten v. Pacific Power & Light Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1915-12-23· cited 40×
- Atkeson v. Jackson EstateWashington Supreme Court· 1913-02-21· cited 31×
- Halverson v. Seattle Electric Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1904-09-21· cited 22×
- Frescoln v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1916-02-29· cited 22×
- Czarecki v. Seattle & San Francisco Railway & Navigation Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1902-11-08· cited 19×
- Davis v. BurkeWashington Supreme Court· 1916-04-04· cited 3×
- Hendrickson v. Grays Harbor Railway & Light Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1915-11-17· cited 2×
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.