Raske v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 74 Wash. 155
• 132 P. 865
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2012

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Negligence—Defective Railway Switch — Evidence—Question for Jury. The negligence of a railroad company in failing to inspect a switch, in which two 85 pound track bolts had been placed between the switch point and stock rail in such a manner as to cause the derailment of a train and injury to a trainman, is for the jury, where the engineer of the last train over the switch noticed a rattling, stopped his train and made an inspection of part of the track, and finding nothing wrong notified the dispatcher to have the east switch of the eastbound track inspected by the next train, which was done without finding anything wrong, when an inspection of the east end of both the west and east-bound switches would have disclosed the fault.</p> <p>Same — Actions—Complaint—Issues, Proof and Variance. A complaint against a railroad company based on the negligent maintenance of a defective switch is broad enough to admit of evidence that it had received notice that the switch was defective and negligently failed to inspect the same.</p> <p>Appeal — Decision—Remand. Upon reversing a judgment for defendant notwithstanding a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to have its motion for a new trial passed upon by the lower court.</p>