Sloan v. North American Transportation & Trading Co.

Citations

• 24 Wash. 221
• 64 P. 150
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 517

Syllabus

<p>CARRIERS-FAILURE TO CARRY PASSENGERS TO DESTINATION —: ACTION FOR DAMAGES-NEW TRIAL-VERDICT CONTRARY TO INSTRUCTIONS.</p> <p>In an action against a carrier for damages for failure to transport plaintiff to a destination contracted for, the refusal of the court to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict in plaintiff’s favor was contrary to the instruction of the court, was not error, where the court charged that it was plaintiff’s duty, in case of the inability of the carrier to transport him, either to finish the journey himself or return to the point of embarkation, if either was reasonably practicable, and that he could not recover for loss of time or sickness if he remained unnecessarily at the point where the carrier left him, since the question of whether it was reasonably practicable for plaintiff to return to the point of embarkation or continue to the point of destination was submitted to the jury and by their verdict they found that it was not practicable for him to do either.</p> <p>SAME-INSTRUCTIONS.</p> <p>Where a transportation company agreed .to carry plaintiff to Dawson City by way of the Yukon river, and failed to perform its contract, but, after its failure to carry him further than Port Yukon, the captain of the steamer represented that he would take him down the river seventy miles, where there was a cabin suitable for occupancy and a good place to cut wood for the winter; and plaintiff was put ashore at that point on condition that he would cut wood for the defendant, and there contracted a cold and severe sickness, permanently impairing his health, by reason of the fact that the cabin was not in a habitable condition, it was not error for the court in an action by him for damages to refuse to charge that plaintiff’s sickness was not, under the testimony in the ease, such a result of any failure of the defendant to carry him to Dawson as would entitle him to reimbursement, since it was for the jury, and not the court, to say whether,