Bailey v. Seattle & R. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 September 1903
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BAILEY v. SEATTLE & R. RY. CO.

73 P. 679

32 Wash. 640

BAILEY v. SEATTLE & R. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 14, 1903

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by Caldonie Bailey against the Seattle & Renton Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Peters & Powell, for appellant.

Will E Humphrey, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

Action for personal damages. The plaintiff brought suit against defendant in the superior court of King county, alleging that she was a passenger in one of defendant's cars running from Seattle to the station of Mathieson, and that in getting off said car she stepped into a hole in the platform, which latter was rotten and out of repair, whereby she sprained her ankle, for which she claimed damages in the sum of $1,000. Defendant answered, denying the acts of negligence complained of, and denying any knowledge or information with respect to the injury or damages. The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $292.50. From said judgment this appeal is taken, and two errors only are assigned: (1) The action of the court in refusing testimony offered by the defendant to impeach plaintiff's witnesses; (2) permitting the recall of the plaintiff to contradict on the witness stand testimony which she had previously given on her direct examination.

The appellant, in its brief, discusses the second error first and we will follow that order in disposing of the case. The plaintiff, Mrs. Bailey, on cross-examination testified as follows: 'Q. Now, Mrs. Bailey, that ankle has always been weak, hasn't it? A. No, sir. Q. Didn't you have trouble with it as a girl? A. No, sir; I never had any trouble. Q. With either of your ankles? A. I had no trouble. Q. This trouble is the first you have had? A. That was the first trouble I ever had. If I had ever had any trouble, I could not have worked like I did.' Witness Braillard was called for the plaintiff, and testified in her behalf. On cross-examination he testified as follows: 'Q. Didn't Mrs. Bailey at that time tell you, Mr. Braillard, that she had had trouble with that ankle before--that it had been weak? A. At that time? Q. Well, at some time. A. Yes; she told me that when she was a little girl, I think--a child--that she had an accident in getting off a car some place in the East. All I can remember of it was that she was visiting with her folks, and they got into a railroad car, and in getting off she sprained her ankle.' Mrs. Bailey was then recalled by the plaintiff, and asked to state which ankle it was which she told Brailard she had injured when a girl. This question was objected to, the objection was overruled, and the answer was as follows: 'It was my right ankle. Well, when may ankle was hurt when I was a little child. It did not amount to anything. I don't even remember telling Mr. Braillard about it, but I certainly did, or he would not have remembered about it. But it was my left ankle that was hurt on the Renton car.' We think it was properly within the discretion of the court to admit this testimony. In the...