Purdy v. Sherman
| Citation | 74 Wash. 309,133 P. 440 |
| Parties | PURDY v. SHERMAN. |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1913 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. P. Bell Judge.
Action by J. Spencer Purdy against E. B. Sherman. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Remanded, with directions to enter judgment for a reduced sum.
E. C. Dailey, of Everett, for appellant.
Faussett & Smith, of Everett, for respondent.
An automobile, driven by one Thomason, but owned by the defendant, was carelessly driven into a machine driven and owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff brought this action to recover for personal injuries suffered, for damage to the machine and for some special damages. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff for $585, and defendant has appealed.
The principal error assigned is that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that a motion for an instructed verdict should have been sustained. The defense was that the machine was operated by Thomason upon an independent percentage basis; that he was a principal, and not the agent of the defendant. The evidence offered by defendant might have sustained a verdict in favor of the defendant, but under repeated decisions of this court the jury was not bound to believe such testimony; the ownership of the automobile being admitted to be in the defendant. 'In cases of this kind where it is shown that the wagon and team doing damage belonged to the defendants at the time of the injury, that fact establishes prima facie that the wagon and team were in the possession of the owner, and that whoever was driving it was doing so for the owner.' Knust v. Bullock, 59 Wash. 141, 109 P. 329. Kneff v. Sanford, 63 Wash 503, 115 P. 1040; Burger v. Taxicab Motor Co., 66 Wash. 676, 120 P. 519. Whether the prima facie case made by the respondent was overcome was a question for the jury, and it has decided that it was not.
One of the items of damage claimed is the loss of a certain surgical operation. Respondent is a physician and surgeon, and conducts a hospital near the town of Sultan. This is objected to as an improper element of damage, and in support of his motion for a new trial defendant has submitted the affidavit of the prospective patient or subject showing that it is extremely improbable that respondent suffered any loss on this account. The operation was prospective, and its performance, under respondent's own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
...128 P. 636. State v. Wilson, 69 Wash. 235, 124 P. 1125. See State v. Schrader, 135 Wash. 650, 662, 238 P. 617, 243 P. 10. Purdy v. Sherman, 74 Wash. 309, 133 P. 440, Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 P. 1020, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 59, overruled by Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc., 13 Wash.2d ......
-
Bradley v. S.L. Savidge, Inc.
...part of the one causing the injury as to leave it a question for the jury. * * * And we have consistently held as in Purdy v. Sherman, supra [74 Wash. 309, 133 P. 440], and Moore v. Roddie, supra [103 Wash. 386, 174 648], that, where nothing but the testimony of interested witnesses as to t......
-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
...P. 636. State v. Wilson, 69 Wash. 235, 124 P. 1125. See State v. Schrader, 135 Wash. 650, 662, 238 P. 617, 243 P. 10. Purdy v. Sherman, 74 Wash. 309, 133 P. 440, and Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 P. 1020, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 59, overruled by Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc., 13 Wash.2d ......
-
Barz v. Fleischmann Yeast Company
...v. Wood, 58 N. J. L. 463; Schulte v. Holliday, 54 Mich. 73; Seaman v. Koehler, 122 N.Y. 646; Ferris v. Sterling, 214 N.Y. 252; Purdy v. Sherman, 74 Wash. 309; Vernarelli Sweikert, 213 P. 482. Boyle & Priest and G. T. Priest for respondent. The court properly excluded evidence as to what def......