Hibbard v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1918
• Docket Number: 14183.
• Citation: 100 Wash. 429,171 P. 233
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HIBBARD et ux. v. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. et al.

171 P. 233

100 Wash. 429

HIBBARD et ux. v. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. et al.

No. 14183.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 28, 1918

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Kenneth Mackintosh, Judge.

Action by Russell Hibbard and wife against the Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The complaint alleged that defendants were guilty of carelessness and negligence towards plaintiffs, in that they carelessly and negligently operated the freight train at the time and place of the accident in a careless and negligent manner, in that they were were backing the train after dark without having or displaying any lights, or sufficient lights to warn persons approaching the crossing of its approach.

Bogle Graves, Merritt & Bogle, of Seattle, for appellants.

Bradford Allison & Egan, of Seattle, for respondents.

PARKER J.

The plaintiffs, Hibbard and wife, seek recovery of damages for personal injuries to both of them which they claim were caused by the negligence of the defendant railroad company and its employés. Trial in the superior court for King county, sitting with a jury, resulted in verdict and judgment awarding the plaintiffs damages in the sum of $2,054, from which the defendants have appealed to this court.

About 9 o'clock in the evening of April 11, 1916, respondents Hibbard and wife, were passengers on a street car in Seattle which was proceeding west on Spokane avenue, approaching Whatcom avenue, which runs north and south. It was then dark. There were street lights at the intersection of these avenues, and at other places along Spokane avenue. There were no street lights or other fixed lights to the south of Spokane avenue in this neighborhood, so that one looking to the south would be looking into the dark where train or other moving lights would be readily recognized. There were no obstructions to the view to the south. Appellant railroad company maintains one of its tracks on Whatcom avenue, which track crosses the street car track at right angles in the intersection of these avenues. As the street car upon which respondents were passengers was approaching this crossing from the east, employés of appellant railroad company were slowly backing a long freight train north towards the crossing, along its track on Whatcom avenue. This train had no caboose upon its rear end and it is claimed by respondent that it had no light upon its rear end. As the street car passed over the crossing, the rear car of the train came into collision with the street car, striking it near the middle of the south side, resulting in the injuries to respondents for which they seek recovery.

The principal contention here made by counsel for appellants is that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict, made at the close of respondents' evidence, upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to support any recovery against appellants counsel for appellants at the same time...