Taylor v. City of Ballard

Citations

• 24 Wash. 191
• 64 P. 143
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 514

Syllabus

<p>MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-DEFECTIVE STREET-ABSENCE OF RAILING -NEGLIGENCE.</p> <p>Where a city maintains a street, elevated from three and one-half to six feet above the adjacent land, without a guard rail to protect teams from shying off the roadway in case of fright, it is liable for negligence when a gentle horse, driven with ordinary care by an experienced driver, becomes frightened at the sight and noise of escaping steam blown off at that point of the street through pipes passing thereunder from an electric power house operated by the city, and backs the buggy to which it is harnessed off the roadway, causing serious injuries to the driver.</p> <p>SAME — ’ INSTRUCTIONS REASONABLE AND ORDINARY CARE.</p> <p>An instruction which charges a jury that the law imposes on municipalities the duty of ordinary care in maintaining their streets in safe condition for ordinary travel is not erroneous on the ground that the law merely requireá the exercise of reasonable care in such cases, since there is no distinction between ordinary care and reasonable care.</p> <p>ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES-PERMANENCY OF INJURY-PLEADING AND PROOF.</p> <p>The admission of testimony by physicians that plaintiff in an action for personal injuries would probably never recover his health again was not erroneous, under a complaint alleging that he would be incapacitated from doing his work for the period of two years, when the complaint further alleges that plaintiff was permanently injured and would continue to suffer for the remainder of his natural life great bodily pain and mental anguish. ■</p> <p>SAME-ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, a statement by counsel that plaintiff “tells you the truth when he tells you he will not be able to get married, and I submit the proof shows that he is incapacitated from contracting the marriage relation,” would not be prejudicial error, on the ground of improper argument of counsel, when the record shows