Guley v. Northwestern Coal & Transp. Co.
Decision Date | 28 December 1893 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | GULEY v. NORTHWESTERN COAL & TRANSP. CO. |
Appeal from superior court, Thurston county; W. W. Langhorne, Judge.
Action by Ernest A. Guley against the Northwestern Coal & Transportation Company for injuries sustained while in defendant's employ. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Phil Skillman, for appellant.
C. S Salisbury, Will H. Thompson, Eduard P. Edsen, and John E. Humphries, for respondent.
The complaint in this case alleged that on the 8th day of March, 1888, plaintiff, then a boy of 13 years, was in the employ of defendant, at its coal mines, in Thurston county, as a screener, and that while so employed he was ordered by defendant's superintendent to leave his work, and, with the assistance of another boy, of about plaintiff's age, to take a car loaded with coal down a steep grade to the scale at said mines. Paragraph 6 then proceeds as follows: "That the plaintiff was inexperienced in handling the brakes of cars, and that the brake on said coal car was defective, and the same was known to defendant, and, despite the utmost efforts and exertions of plaintiff and his companion, the car got beyond their control and rushed down a steep grade with such great speed that plaintiff was thrown from said car to the ground, falling in such a manner that his right hand lay across the rail of the car track, and was permanently injured, to wit, by the car running over his right hand, and crushing and mangling it in such a manner that amputation was necessary, and the fingers of said right hand were in consequence amputated, and the hand crippled for life." The answer admitted the plaintiff's employment as a coal screener; denied having ordered plaintiff to get upon the car, or that the brake was defective; and set up facts showing that he had, in spite of the defendant's commands, and without its knowledge, left his work, and gone upon the car, when he was injured by his own carelessness. The reply was a general denial of the facts showing contribution. The plaintiff alone testified to the facts, in substance as follows: ' Cross-examined: Redirect: Plaintiff's foster mother and one Striker corroborated him as to what Ismay said, in taking the blame for the accident upon himself. His father was dead, at the time of the trial. Striker further stated that the railroad grade between the bunker and the scale was not heavy; enough to run a car down without forcing it any, unless the track was dirty, as it generally was at the bunkers. Didn't think a car, along there, would run a mile an hour. This testimony by no means met the allegations of the complaint that the injury occurred by plaintiff's being thrown off the car while it was running away down a steep grade, and by reason thereof, and because the brake was defective, and would have justified the court in striking it all out. But having been received without objection, and no motion to strike, or suggestion of surprise having been made, a nonsuit was properly refused.
On behalf of the defendant, the superintendent testified that plaintiff's discharges, both before and after the accident, were because he persisted in leaving his work and getting on the coal cars as they were being handled along the track. He also denied having told plaintiff to get upon the car,-or having given him a stick,-or to brake the car, or that the brake was defective, to his knowledge. The car in question had been loaded and run down within a few feet of the scales, where it was stopped by dirt on the track. Witness was back in the rear of a second car, which had been loaded, and had been pinching the second car ahead so as to strike the first car, and bump it on to the scales. Just at the moment of the collision, he turned, and saw plaintiff and his own boy on the front end of the first car, and saw plaintiff fall. He ran around, and found the front truck not yet on the scales, and plaintiff lying under this truck, the first wheel of which had passed over his hand. Drew the boy out from under the car, and carried him home. Witness denied having said he was to blame, in having directed the boy to get on the car, and giving him a stick, or that Striker was present when he carried him in. Had instructed the boys, many times, not to get on the cars, and told other employes to see that they did not do so. Punished his own boy for getting on this car, and on other similar occasions. Ismay, Jr., testified: Other adult witnesses, several in number, corroborated the superintendent and contradicted the plaintiff; six of them, as to the frequent and positive instructions given the boys to keep off the cars. The jury, without any evidence to base it on, found, specially, that the brake was defective, and that defendant knew it. They also found that it was the breaking of the stick that caused plaintiff to fall; that another car collided with the car he was on; that there was no rule, of which plaintiff had knowledge, against his going on cars; and that he went upon the car under the order of the superintendent. They found generally for the plaintiff. While we shall ordinarily be very slow to interfere with the verdict of a jury, where the testimony is conflicting, we do not think justice would be done, were this one allowed to stand. There may be, and sometimes are, cases where the testimony of a single witness, even a child, will outweigh that of many opposed, where there are circumstances of suspicion connected with them. But there was not, in this case, a single attempt to break down or impeach a witness for the defendant; and much of what they did say, that was material, was not contradicted by the plaintiff, though he was called in rebuttal. Credible witnesses cannot be set aside in this way, and a verdict supported on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, and he the party most interested. Where the clear weight of the evidence is with either side, there is no substantial conflict, and the court should take the decision of the case from the jury. Thomp. Trials, § 2250; Wilds v. Railroad Co., 24 N.Y. 430; Corning v. Nail Factory, 44 N.Y. 577.
No part of the instructions given on the question of the defective brake was proper, in the case, because there was no competent testimony on that subject. One of the principal grounds urged to support the recovery was that plaintiff was a child of tender years, without knowledge or experience to enable him to care for himself. Yet his statement that the brake was hard to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
...in the verdict.' See, also, Armstrong v. Modern Woodmen of America, 93 Wash. 352, 354, 160 P. 946, 947, which criticises Guley v. Northwestern Coal & Transp. Co., supra, as follows: '* * * It is true that in that case is a declaration that where the clear weight of the evidence is with eith......
-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
...and Seal v. Puget Sound Loan & Inv. Co., 5 Wash. 422, 32 P. 214. [141 P.2d 617] The statement in Guley v. Northwestern Coal & Transp. Co., 7 Wash. 491, 35 P. 372, 374, that, 'Where the clear weight of the evidence is with either side, there is no substantial conflict, and the [17 Wn.2d 121]......
-
Schinzer v. Wyman
... ... 125 U.S. 273, 300, 31 ... L.Ed. 747, 756, 8 S.Ct. 850; Colorado Coal & I. Co. v ... United States, 123 U.S. 307, 317, 31 L.Ed. 182, 186, 8 ... 856; ... Little v. Braun, 11 N.D. 410, 92 N.W. 800; ... Northwestern F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Lough, 13 N.D. 601, ... 102 N.W. 160; Heyrock v ... Eastwood v. Relsof Min. Co. 86 Hun, 91, 34 N.Y.S ... 196; Guley v. Northwestern Coal & Transp. Co. 7 ... Wash. 491, 35 P. 372; Thomas ... ...
-
Douville v. Pacific Coast Casualty Company
... ... motion. (Guley v. Northwestern Coal & Transp. Co., 7 ... Wash. 491, 35 P. 372.) ... ...