Skip to main content
· 9/25/1906

Sullivan v. Seattle Electric Co.

Citations

  • 44 Wash. 53
  • 86 P. 786
  • 1906 Wash. LEXIS 786

Syllabus

<p>Trial — Instructions—Assumption op Issue — Argumentative and Complicated. It is not error to refuse requested instructions of extreme length assuming in some places the issue in controversy, as proved, in other respects argumentative, and as a whole complicated and involved.</p> <p>Carriers — Negligence—Duty to Intoxicated Person — Instruction. In an action to recover damages from a street car company for the death of a passenger resulting from alleged negligence in permitting the deceased, while intoxicated, to alight at an unsafe place, it is error to instruct the Jury to the effect that the carrier owed no greater care to an intoxicated person than to one in a normal condition, if he knew where he wanted to get off and was able to do so without assistance, and unless he was “absolutely helpless”; since the rule is that the carrier owes to a passenger a duty commensurate with his condition, and it was for the jury to determine whether due care was exercised under all the circumstances.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Pakty Entitled to Allege Error. The question of the insufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence, cannot be reviewed at the instance of the defendant, on an appeal by the plaintiffs, in whose favor ruling thereon was made below.</p>

Judges: Fullerton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.