Valentine v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 70 Wash. 95
• 126 P. 99
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1006

Syllabus

<p>Carriers — Injuries to Passengers — Sleeping Cars — Evidence— Nonsuit. In an action by a passenger against a railroad company and a sleeping car company for injuries sustained on a sleeping car through the negligent construction of a door and want of lights on the car, a nonsuit as to the sleeping car company is proper, where it was not alleged or shown that it sold the ticket or owned or operated the car.</p> <p>Same — Degree of Care — Sleeping Cars. The duty of a railroad company to exercise the highest degree of care for passengers compatible with practical operation, applies to sleeping cars connected with the train, regardless of any private contract or arrangement it may have with the sleeping car company.</p> <p>Same — Cars and Appliances — Negligence—Evidence. A spring sufficiently strong to close a toilet room door on a Pullman sleeper being a necessary safeguard, in view of the swaying and lurching of the train, evidence that the spring was stronger than found on other cars, is not sufficient to establish negligence or make a case for the jury.</p> <p>Same — Negligence—Res Ipsa Loquitur. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to the case of an injury to a passenger by reason of the automatic closing of a spring door, when it was not shown that the door did not close when it ought not to have closed or that the spring did not perform its function.</p> <p>Same — Negligence—Lighting Car — Question for Jury. In an action by a passenger for injuries sustained when her hand was caught by the closing of a spring door to the toilet room in a sleeping car, whether it was reasonably necessary to light the passageway or toilet room is a question for the jury, where it was a reasonable inference from the testimony that the accident would not have happened if lights had been provided.</p> <p>Same — Contributory Negligence — Question for Jury. In such case, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff in failing to call for lights is for the jury, where she