Sullivan v. Seattle Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1906
• Citation: 44 Wash. 53,86 P. 786
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SULLIVAN et al. v. SEATTLE ELECTRIC CO.

86 P. 786

44 Wash. 53

SULLIVAN et al. v. SEATTLE ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 25, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam, Judge.

Action by Anna Sullivan and others against the Seattle Electric Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

John E. Humphries and Geo. E. Cole, for appellants.

Hughes, McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey, for respondent.

FULLERTON, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for the death of David Sullivan, who was the husband of the appellant Anna Sullivan and father of the minor appellants. The death occurred by drowning, caused, it is alleged, by the negligence of the respondent. The respondent operates street car lines in the city of Seattle, and suburban lines from that city to the neighboring towns. One of such lines extends from the city of Seattle in a northerly direction to Fremont. This line passes along the west edge of Lake Union being constructed on an open trestle over the waters of the lake. The line where it crosses the lake is double tracked the track to the east being used for cars outward-bound from the city of Seattle, and the one to the west for those returning. Immediately to the west of the car line, and separated from it by a railway, is a planked roadway known as the 'Boulevard.' At intervals along its car line where it parallels this roadway the respondent has constructed platforms or stations opening into the roadway for the convenience of its passenger service. One of such stations, called 'Hinckley Station,' is constructed about midway of the lake. This station has an opening into the street of 50 feet in width, and is planked for the same width across the double tracks of the car line to some 6 or 8 feet beyond, a distance from the roadway of some 40 feet. It is surrounded, except where the car tracks enter and leave it, with a substantial railing. On the evening of November 19, 1904, shortly before 10 o'clock, Mr. Sullivan boarded one of the respondent's cars in the city of Seattle at the junction of Seventh and Stewart streets presumably to go to his home, which was in Fremont. It is agreed by both sides that he was under the influence of liquor at the time, although the degree of his intoxication is a subject of controversy in the evidence. Mr. Sullivan first manifested his condition by insisting he had not received change for the coin he had tendered for his fare. After being appeased as to this, he remembered some duty he had not performed in the city of Seattle, and insisted on being let off the car, going so far as to give the emergency signal, bringing the car to a full stop at once. The car stopped after it had entered on the Lake Union trestle, and the conductor, deeming it unsafe in his condition to let him off at that place, forcibly restrained him from leaving the car. This act of the conductor seemingly enraged Sullivan and he expressed his feelings in vile and abusive language, refusing to cease even at the command of the conductor. The conductor finally told him he could get off at Hinckley station, and when the car reached that place he was permitted to alight on the side of the car opposite the roadway; that being the usual place for passengers to alight who get off of outwardbound cars. Certain witnesses who were on the car testify that Mr. Sullivan walked in the direction of the roadway as the car started on its way. This is the last time he was seen alive. Some five days later his body was found in the waters of the lake, directly below the south edge of the platform where it joins onto the planked roadway. The negligence of the respondent, according to the contention of the appellants, consisted in permitting Sullivan to get off its car at Hinckley station, which place they allege was a dangerous place for one in his condition. The case was tried on this theory, and resulted in a verdict for the respondent. This appeal is from the judgment entered on the verdict.

The errors assigned relate to the refusal to give certain instructions requested by the appellants, and to the giving of certain others on the court's own motion. The instructions requested were 10 in number and cover some 14 pages of typewritten matter. But, without setting them out at length, their mere perusal shows that the court did not err in refusing to give them. Were they otherwise unobjectionable, their extreme length would alone justify the refusal to give them. But we think they were erroneous in other respects. In many places they assume as proved the very issue in controversy, in others they are argumentative, and as a whole so complicated and involved as to require as much elucidation as the facts of the case themselves. The giving of such instructions does not tend to enlighten the jury. The ordinary jury is composed of plain men, unfamiliar even with the language of the law, and to them an instruction is meaningless unless it be stated in plain and simple language, and is a clear, accurate, and concise statement of the law applicable to the facts of the case. No error was committed therefore in refusing to give the requested instructions.

The instructions given and excepted to are the following 'The gist of this action is based upon the assumption that the deceased, David Sullivan, was in such a condition that he was helpless. I instruct you, in that respect, that if you find that the deceased, David Sullivan, was in such a condition of mind as to know that he wanted to get off at a certain stopping place of the defendant, and requested the defendant to let him off there, and that he was in such...