Ross v. Rose

Citations

• 109 Wash. 273
• 186 P. 892
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 908

Syllabus

<p>Highways (55, 58)—Use foe Travel — Frightened Animals— Question foe Juey. Whether there was compliance with Rem. Code, § 5562-27, as to the duty of an automobile driver on approaching frightened animals, is a question for the jury, where there was evidence that the auto approached a frightened horse upon a dangerous approach to a bridge, at a high rate of speed and making a great noise, causing the horse to plunge off the embankment.</p> <p>Same (58)—Contributory Negligence. Whether a horse that became frightened at an automobile was known by defendant to be unsafe to drive, is a question for the jury, where it appeared that he had frequently driven it in automobile traffic and had passed automobiles safely in the same place, although once some month's before it had turned around with him.</p> <p>Same (59)—Instructions. In an action for injuries sustained through the frightening of plaintiffs’ horse in the negligent driving of. an automobile at great speed making a great noise, it is proper to refuse to instruct that plaintiffs’ failure to signal defendant, as provided in Rem. Code, § 5562-27, was contributory negligence precluding a recovery, since the signal is called for only when a full stop is required, and the statute made it the positive duty of the. defendant to exercise precaution to prevent frightening the horse.</p> <p>New Tbial (24)—Gbounds—Weight oe Evidence. The fact that the trial court may have considered an award inadequate is not ground for granting the defendant a new trial.</p>