Scharf v. Spokane & Inland Empire Railroad

Citations

• 92 Wash. 561
• 159 P. 797
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 813

Syllabus

<p>Railroads- — Operation-—Injury to Licensees — Contributory Negligence — Proximate Cause — Evidence—Sufficiency. A naked licensee, using a railroad switch yard by sufferance, is guilty of contributory negligence which was the proximate cause of his death, where he walked along the middle of a railroad track while on either side were paths equally as good which he might have traveled in safety, and after seeing a switch engine on a parallel track stopping to uncouple a car, he never looked back to see if it was put in motion; since he was bound to exercise the highest degree of care for his own safety.</p> <p>Same — Operation—Injury to Licensee ■ — • Negligence — Comparative Negligence. The failure to ring a bell or carry a forward lookout upon a switch engine in a switch yard, although negligent, does not amount to wantonness or wilfulness in running down a licensee who was not seen by the engineer, and therefore does not render the company liable where the licensee’s own negligence was the proximate cause of his death; as the doctrine of comparative negligence does not obtain in this state.</p> <p>Same — Injury to Licensee — Negligence-—“Last Clear Chance.” In an action for the death of a licensee, run down by a switch engine, the doctrine of “last clear chance” has no application where the defendant had no actual knowledge of the probability of injuring the decedent, whose negligence continued up to the moment of the injury and was the proximate cause of his death.</p>