Rangenier v. Seattle Electric Co.

Citations

• 52 Wash. 401
• 100 P. 842
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1129

Syllabus

<p>Carriers — Passengers—Setting Down Intoxicated Passenger. Where the jury, upon conflicting evidence, must have found that a street car was suddenly started while the plaintiff was in the act of alighting, the company would be liable for negligence causing injuries whether the plaintiff was drunk or sober.</p> <p>Evidence — Admissibility—Responsiveness. Where a witness is asked if he noticed plaintiffs condition as to sobriety, an answer that he thought he was drunk may properly be stricken as not responsive.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Evidence—Facts Otherwise Established. It is not prejudicial error to strike the statement of a witness that he thought the plaintiff was drunk, where afterwards he was asked what indications made him know plaintiff’s condition, and he answered that he smelled as if he was drinking whiskey.</p> <p>Same — Failure to Ask Proper Question. Defendant cannot complain of the striking of an answer of a witness that he thought plaintiff was drunk, where he did not pursue the inquiry, or ask whether plaintiff was intoxicated.</p> <p>Trial — Misconduct op Counsel — Argument to Jury — Harmless Error. It is not ground for reversal that counsel, in argument to the jury, stated that he had been a superior judge, and would not believe a certain witness under oath, where the court upon request at once instructed the jury that the witness had not been impeached and to disregard the statement, and the testimony of the witness related only to an incidental fact, and not to the pivotal question in issue.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Instructions. It is not error to refuse to give an instruction in the form requested, if given in language of the court’s own choosing.</p> <p>Carriers — Contributory Negligence — Instructions as to Proximate Cause. Upon an issue as to the contributory negligence of a passenger in alighting from a street car, an instruction allowing recovery if the plaintiff was not guilty of negligence “which was the