Perry Bros. v. Diamond Ice & Storage Co.

Citations

• 92 Wash. 105
• 158 P. 1008
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 738

Syllabus

<p>Warehousemen — Cold Storage — Negligence—Pleading. A complaint against a cold storage company alleging that plaintiff’s eggs when placed in storage were fresh and in good condition and while stored became tainted with a foreign and unnatural flavor, makes out a prima facie case of negligence, without alleging specific acts, where plaintiff alleges it has no knowledge of the specific acts.</p> <p>Same — Cold Storage — Negligence—Evidence—Question for Jury. The negligence of a warehouseman as the producing cause of deterioration of a carload of eggs placed in cold storage is 'a question for the jury where it appears that the eggs were fairly tested before going into cold storage and showed no evidence of deterioration or foreign odor, and that four months later when taken out they had acquired a foreign odor which reduced their market value.</p> <p>Same — Cold Storage — Negligence — Evidence — Admissibility. Upon an issue as to whether eggs in cold storage had become impregnated with a foreign odor, it is not prejudicial error to admit evidence that twenty cases from a lot of four hundred cases had been examined and tested, and that, in the opinion of experts, there was a fair test as to the quality of the lot; as the proper manner of testing is not a matter of common knowledge.</p> <p>Same. In an action against a warehouseman for damages for deterioration of eggs placed in cold storage, it is not error to admit evidence that eggs of another consignee, placed in the same room, came out of cold storage impregnated with the same foreign odor that caused plaintiff’s damage.</p> <p>Same. In such a case, it is not prejudicial error to admit evidence as to the general course of business of the consignor in gathering and shipping eggs at that time of the year, although the witness was not present when the car in question was shipped.</p> <p>Witnesses — Impeachment. Technical error in allowing the impeachment of a witness upon a collateral issue does not warrant a reversal