Shafer v. Tacoma Eastern Railroad
Citations
- 91 Wash. 164
- 157 P. 485
- 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1032
Syllabus
<p>Negligence — Dangerous Operations — Duty to Volunteer — Assumption or Risks. One who was attracted to the scene of the lifting of a derailed engine, by reason of the element of danger, which he fully appreciated, is a mere licensee or volunteer to whom no duty was owed except not to wilfully and wantonly injure him, although when warned away he took up a place on property adjoining the right of way which he deemed safe; since he assumed the risk of apparent danger and cannot complain of want of care or unskillfulness whereby he was injured.</p> <p>Same — “Last Clear Chance” — Presumptions. In such case the doctrines of “last clear chance” and “res ipsa loquitur’’ have no application.</p>
Judges: Morris
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Plummer v. DillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1892-05-20· cited 191×
- Nordstrom v. Spokane & Inland Empire RailroadWashington Supreme Court· 1909-11-05· cited 14×
- Mathews v. BenselSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1888-11-15· cited 14×
- Birkel v. ChandlerWashington Supreme Court· 1901-10-09· cited 13×
- Currier v. Trustees of Dartmouth CollegeFirst Circuit· 1902-05-29· cited 12×
- Kroeger v. Grays Harbor Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1914-12-29· cited 8×
- Metz v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1913-02-19· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.