Selby v. Vancouver Water Works Co.

Citations

• 32 Wash. 522
• 73 P. 504
• 1903 Wash. LEXIS 451

Syllabus

<p>APPEAL-OBJECTION NOT RAISED BELOW-SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT -PRESUMPTION AS TO AMENDMENT.</p> <p>The objection that the complaint does not allege defendant’s negligence as the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, when the evidence sufficiently connects the one as the proximate cause of the other, thereby warranting the court in deeming the complaint amended to correspond therewith.</p> <p>NEGLIGENCE-OBSTRUCTION IN HIGHWAY- — - FRIGHTENING HORSES-QUESTIONS FOR JURY.</p> <p>' Whether defendant was negligent in piliDg old planks on a highway close to the traveled part, without any authority therefor and without any showing of necessity except that the planks would have slid down and injured the abutting owner’s fence if they had been placed off the traveled way, on the slope of the embankment, and whether the obstruction was of such a character as to frighten horses, were questions for the jury in an action for injuries caused by plaintiff’s horse shying at such obstruction.</p> <p>SAME-EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.</p> <p>A verdict for $1,500 for injury to the arm of a common laborer cannot be said to be excessive, where it appears that he was entirely incapacitated from using it for about three months; that he would probably never be able to lift as much with it or use it as dexterously as before; that by reason of the fracture being in the joint of the elbow his suffering had been more acute than in the case of ordinary bone fractures; and that he had spent the sum of $100 for surgical treatment.</p> <p>SAME INSTRUCTIONS- — REASONABLE NECESSITY FOR OBSTRUCTIONS.</p> <p>In an action for damages because of injuries occasioned by the fright of a horse at debris placed along the side of a public highway by defendant, a charge to the jury that if it was not reasonably necessary for defendant in making improvements to use the highway for piling and burning debris, then defendant had no right to use it for that purpose, and plaintiff