Bothell v. City of Seattle
Decision Date | 26 June 1897 |
Citation | 17 Wash. 263,49 P. 491 |
Parties | BOTHELL v. CITY OF SEATTLE. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. Humes, Judge.
Action by George Bothell against the city of Seattle. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
John K. Brown and F. B. Tipton, for appellant.
Brady & Gay, for respondent.
This case was argued by the same counsel and submitted together with that of Sproul v. City of Seattle (just decided) 49 P. 489. It was brought to recover for injuries received by respondent at the same time and place, and occasioned in the same manner, as those occurring to Sproul. The principal questions in it are ruled by that case. Aside from the questions there discussed, we deem it necessary only to say that, from an examination of the evidence, we think the court did not err in denying the motion for nonsuit, upon the ground of contributory negligence of the respondent. The mere fact that, within three or four months prior to the time of the injury, respondent had traveled the sidewalk in that portion of the city, was not of itself sufficient to defeat his recovery in the present action.
2. The testimony of witness Sproul as to the condition in which he found the respondent some time after the accident, and respondent's exclamations of pain and suffering testified to by the witness, was, we think, both competent and material, and the court did not err in receiving it over appellant's objections. The judgment must be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Pugh
... ... 204, 214, 29 P. 1055 (1892) (res ... gestae is a general rule of evidence); Bothell v ... Seattle, 17 Wash. 263, 264, 49 P. 491 (1897) (testimony ... of witness about ... ...
-
Cowie v. City of Seattle
...for such injury on the ground of contributory negligence. See McQuillan v. City of Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 38 P. 1119; Bothell v. Same, 17 Wash. 263, 49 P. 491; Smith v. City of Spokane, 16 Wash. 403, 47 P. And this ruling is amply supported by the authorities. 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.......
-
Buell v. Park Auto Transp. Co.
... ... B. Howe, Hugh A. Tait, Murphy & Kumm, and Charles L. Harris, ... all of Seattle, for appellant ... Williams ... & Davis, of Everett, for respondents ... respondents and a motor stage of appellant, about 2 miles ... south of the city of Everett, about 1 o'clock p. m. on ... June 17, 1923. The jury awarded damages in the sum ... fifth claim seems to have been decided by this court in the ... cases of Bothell v. Seattle, 17 Wash. 263, 49 P ... 491; Peterson v. Seattle Traction Co., 23 Wash. 615, ... ...