Roberts v. Spokane Street Railway Co.

Citations

• 23 Wash. 325
• 54 L.R.A. 184
• 63 P. 506
• 1900 Wash. LEXIS 363

Syllabus

<p>STREET RAILWAYS — COLLISION AT STREET CROSSING — NEGLIGENCE -SPEED OP CARS-WHEN QUESTION POR JURY.</p> <p>The question whether an electric car was running at a high, dangerous and excessive rate of speed, at the time of an accident at a street crossing, is one for the jury, and not a matter of law for the court to determine, when from the surrounding circumstances it appears that the car had defective applianc.es for its control, so that it could not be speedily stopped, that it was running at the rate of two and one-half miles per hour, at a street crossing, at which point it was passing another car on a parallel track, going in the opposite direction.</p> <p>SAME — DUTY TO LOOK AND LISTEN.</p> <p>Failure to look and listen before crossing the tracks of an electric railway in a public street, where the cars have not exclusive right of way, is not negligence as a matter of law.</p> <p>SAME-CARS PASSING ONE ANOTHER.</p> <p>The question of negligence in one car passing another at a street crossing is one of fact, in the light of all the evidence in the case.</p> <p>SAME — INSTRUCTIONS.</p> <p>In an action to recover for injuries resulting from a collision with an electric car at a street crossing, a requested instruction, that the verdict should be for defendant, if the motorman exercised ordinary care, after discovering the dangerous position of plaintiff, in endeavoring to stop the car with such equipment and apparatus as it had at the time, was properly refused, when one of the elements of negligence charged by the complaint was that the appliances for stopping the car were defective.</p> <p>SAME — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.</p> <p>A requested instruction that, if the plaintiff was guilty of an act of negligence which directly contributed to the injury, in .a collision between himself and a street car at a crossing, or of any lack of ordinary care on his part, or an omission tO' do what he ought to have done under the circumstances, which act or omission directly