Johnson v. Washington Route, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | 17124. |
| Citation | 209 P. 1100,121 Wash. 608 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHNSON et al. v. WASHINGTON ROUTE, Inc. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Kitsap County; Walter M. French, Judge.
Action by Mary Johnson and husband against the Washington Route Incorporated. Judgment of Dismissal, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Bronson Robinson & Jones, of Seattle, for appellants.
Bryan & Garland, of Bremerton, for respondent.
The purpose of this action was to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been due to the negligence of the defendant. One of the defenses pleaded was that of contributory negligence. The cause came on for trial before the court and a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' evidence, the defendant made a motion for nonsuit, which was sustained upon the ground of contributory negligence. From the judgment entered, dismissing the action, the plaintiffs appeal. The appellants are husband and wife. The respondent is a corporation.
On the 25th day of October, 1920, the appellant Mrs. Mary Johnson took passage upon the respondent's steamer Reeves at the Manette dock in Kitsap county for the city of Bremerton. When the steamer arrived at the municipal dock in the latter city, the employees of the respondent placed a gangplank from the boat to the wharf; the outer end being something like 22 or 24 inches above the floor of the dock. In stepping from the gangplank to the dock, Mrs. Johnson was injured. Three or four passengers had preceded her over the gangplank to the dock. An employee was at the end of the plank to assist the passengers in alighting. Mrs. Johnson passed over the gangplank; the employee took her hand for the purpose of assisting her to the dock, and as she stepped from the plank, being a woman said to be somewhat heavy, she went down upon the dock and was injured.
It was a clear day, and nothing was present to obstruct her vision. In her testimony Mrs. Johnson says that she thought there was a step at the end of the plank, and that the failure to have a step there was what caused her fall. She did not look to see if there were such a step, but walked off the gangplank, without using her faculties to determine whether the employees had placed a step at the end of the plank before the passengers alighted.
Without deciding, it will be assumed that, under the facts as presented in the record, the question of neglifence on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dudley v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
... ... D. 1924) 300 F. 696; Kelley v ... Hines (Ga. 1920) 25 Ga.App. 186, 102 S.E. 921; ... Johnson v. Washington Route (Wash. 1922) 121 Wash ... 608, 209 P. 1100; Murray v. Bedell Co. (1931) ... ...
-
Tobias v. Rainwater
...McGuire, 27 Wash.2d 841, 180 P.2d 808; McClellan v. Great Western Fuel Co., 32 Wash.2d 202, 201 P.2d 221. See, also, Johnson v. Washington Route, 121 Wash. 608, 209 P. 1100, and Silverstein v. Adams, 134 Wash. 430, 235 P. 784, 785, where many cases are Harris v. Fiore, 70 Wash.Dec.2d 335, 4......
-
Southern Maryland Elec. Co-op. v. Blanchard
...he in the nature of things must have seen.' Fulton Bldg. Co. v. Stichel, 135 Md. 542, 109 A. 434, 437. Accord: Johnson v. Washington Route, 121 Wash. 608, 609-611, 209 P. 1100; Seabridge v. Poli, 98 Conn. 297, 301, 119 A. 214; DeHoney v. Harding (C.C.A.) [8 Cir.,] 300 F. In Arkansas Power &......
-
Roberts v. Leahy
... ... v. LEAHY et al. No. 30933. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. February 10, 1950 ... Rehearing ... Denied ... negligence as a matter of law. Rhodes v. Johnson, ... 163 Wash. 54, 299 P. 976; Strouse v. Smith, 166 ... See also Johnson v ... Washington Route, 121 Wash. 608, 209 P. 1100, and ... Silverstein v. Adams, 134 ... ...