Skip to main content
· 5/6/1910

Walters v. Spokane International Railway Co.

Citations

  • 58 Wash. 293
  • 108 P. 593
  • 1910 Wash. LEXIS 932

Syllabus

<p>■ Master and Servant—Railroads—Defective Roadbed—Evidence —Sufficiency. A finding that a derailment was due to the defective condition of a railway roadbed is sustained, where there was competent evidence that the track was new, inferior ties had been used, the rails had not be'en spiked to all the ties, it was not properly surfaced or ballasted, and the train that was derailed was running at moderate speed.</p> <p>Evidence—Res Gestae—Statements of Employees—Remoteness. Statements made by the conductor of a derailed train to the effect that the accident was caused by the pulling of spikes, the spreading of the rails, and a “bum track,” are admissible as part of the res gestae, where it appears that he was the company’s chief representative in charge of the train, that he went forward and was the first to reach the scene of the accident, where he gave attention to two men fatally injured, that he ran about a mile and occupied some time in sending a long distance telephone for relief, and walked back to the train, where he arrived almost two hours after the accident, at which time the statements were made under conditions of responsibility and anxiety tending to render them spontaneous and truthful, without their being the result of reflection or premeditation; the question of remoteness being within the discretion of the trial judge, and to be determined by the circumstances of each case (Rudkin, C. L, dissenting).</p> <p>Railroads—Defective Teack—Evidence—Admissibility—Trial. 'Upon an issue as to the defective condition of a new railroad track and roadbed which caused the derailment of a train, it is not error to exclude evidence offered by the railroad company to show that the same was in as good condition as is customary with roads of like age, where great latitude was allowed in receiving evidence of experienced men as to all the details of proper construction and condition of new tracks.</p> <p>Death—Excessive Damages. A verdict for $20,000 for the death of a

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that the “plaintiffs’ negligence claim ‘fail[s] to present any new discussion or claim that does not relate back to the . . . products liability claim which has previously been determined to be legally insufficient’”
  • noting that the plaintiffs’ “negligence claim ‘fail[s] to present any new discussion or claim that does not relate back to the ... products liability claim which ha[s] previously been determined to be legally insufficient to survive summary judgment’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crow, Dunbar, Mount, Parker, Rudkin

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.