Harris v. Puget Sound Elec. Ry.
Decision Date | 27 March 1909 |
Citation | 52 Wash. 298,100 P. 841 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | HARRIS v. PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RY. |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.
Action by Otto Harris, infant, by Annie Harris, his guardian ad litem, against the Puget Sound Electric Railway. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
James B. Howe and Hugh A. Tait, for appellant.
Blaine, Tucker & Hyland and Robert C. Saunders, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover for personal injuries received by Otto Harris in the same collision in which his father was killed, as stated in Harris v. Puget Sound Electric Railway (No. 7617, just decided) 100 P. 838. The case was tried to the court and a jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of respondent for $2,000. The defendant appeals.
The same points are presented in this case as were presented in that case. The decision in that case controls this. The further point is made in this case, however, that there is no evidence to show that the father was authorized to employ the son under the agreement to pay the $1.50 per day and furnish transportation upon the appellant's trains to and from his work. The boy testified that such was the contract. The pass itself shows upon its face that the father was authorized to carry other employés with him. We think this is sufficient to go to the jury upon the question of authority. But, further than this, the boy was rightfully upon the train as a passenger, and was entitled to be carried as such ( Bradburn v. Whatcom County R. & L. Co., 45 Wash. 582, 88 P. 1020, 14 L. R. A. [N. S.] 526), unless it was shown by the appellant that he had waived his rights as a passenger. It was not so shown.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scanlon v. Kansas City
...31 Wash. 252, 71 Pac. 1014; Donald v. Ballard, 34 Wash. 576, 76 Pac. 80; Hammer v. Caine, 47 Wash. 672, 92 Pac. 441; Harris v. Elec. Ry. Co., 52 Wash. 298, 100 Pac. 841; State to Use of Hempstead v. Coste, 36 Mo. 437. (2) The court committed error in refusing to sustain and in overruling th......
-
Scanlon v. Kansas City
... ... 576, 76 P. 80; Hammer v ... Caine, 47 Wash. 672, 92 P. 441; Harris v. Elec. Ry ... Co., 52 Wash. 298, 100 P. 841; State to Use of ... ...