Sadler v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 118 Wash. 121
• 203 P. 10
• 1921 Wash. LEXIS 936

Syllabus

<p>Railroads (66) — Accident at Crossing — Contributory Negligence — Evidence—Sufficiency. While it is a general rule that the contributory negligence of one riding as a guest in an automobile is a question for the jury in case of personal injuries resulting from a collision, yet where the evidence conclusively shows the guest guilty of such negligence, he or his personal representative should be nonsuited.</p> <p>Same (66). Where an automobile truck was approaching a railroad crossing at a speed of three miles an hour, and a passenger riding as a guest on the side from which a railroad train was approaching could have had an unobstructed view of the train for the distance of a thousand feet and could have warned the driver to stop in good time or could have left the truck, he was guilty of such contributory negligence as to preclude recovery by his personal representative for his death.</p> <p>Same (66). One operating a train has a right to assume that a person approaching the track in an automobile will use reasonable care for his own protection, and will also give the train the right of way to which it is entitled under the law; and the operator of the train is not required to limit the speed or stop until it is apparent that those in the automobile about to cross the traek are not aware of the approach of the train, or do not intend to give it the right of way.</p> <p>Same (66). The duty imposed upon railway companies of giving signals on approaching highway crossings and of limiting their speed within city limits does not relieve the driver of a machine or his guest of the duty to use reasonable care; and where a guest of the driver could have seen or heard the approach of a train in time to save himself, his personal representative cannot recover for his death, even if the train failed to signal its approach or was exceeding the speed limited by city ordinance.</p>